There are a number errors being made by Gil. I will only point out the most outstanding ones. The first is that he was lifted the passage out of context. The second is that the poster is taking a general metaphysical statement and attempting to shoehorn it into a specific physical statement. This is also known as equivocating.
BIG LIE IN THE BIBLE!
by Gill 43 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
Narkissos
To me the point is not moral "fairness" but almost the opposite: the blessings (or curses) are not measured by moral standards -- the "fair" thing to do by a "moral" God would be to treat the righteous and unrighteous differently, and he doesn't.
Even "worse" in Job 38: the gift of rain is not measured by human interests at all.
""Who has cut a channel for the torrents of rain,
and a way for the thunderbolt,
to bring rain on a land where no one lives,
on the desert, which is empty of human life, to satisfy the waste and desolate land,
and to make the ground put forth grass?" -
Oroborus21
justsomedude,
ok I can't believe I am actually going to take time to explain this or that it is necessary....
the statement is one of observation that is namely when the rain pours in any given area upon a population, there are in the speaker's judgment (and yes it is Jesus) in that population both righteous and unrighteous, and thus it rains to their equal benefit (or not actually). The point being made is that generally rain does not just shower upon the field of the righteous man while leaving his next door neighbour's bone dry because he happens to be unrighteous.
This is a simple, folksy and easy to understand illustration which is a metaphor for God's love/righteousness/fairness, etc.
This statement is obviously not meant to convey ANYTHING about climate, drought, where rain does and doesn't fall in some larger sense than the one which I have described.
Further this statement is not one of science which might describe the actual processes involved of evaporation, condensation and precipitation.
Contrary to a very stupid but catchy Country Song, God does not have his angels "pour out the rain" and of course Jesus knew that. Like most believers, Jesus and the audience understand that God, as the Creator, is to be recognized for such blessings as beneficial rain.
-Eduardo
-
Oroborus21
Narkissos,you misunderstand the moral lesson in the main, which is to love "evil persons" thus it is a lesson in "undeserved kindness" aka Grace. True, perfect Justice would imply that God should make the righteous man's field watered and curtain off his unrighteous' neighbor's from the rainfall but he does not. (or rather it does not occur that way in the physical world, normally of course, which Jesus and the audience observe.)
Thus Jesus implies that God shows kindness or love to the unrighteous and therefore implores us, in imitation of the Father, to do the same.
Whether one is a believer or not, whether one sees the words as inspired or not, surely the lesson is simple enough and valuable to all.
As for comparing it to Job's verses, simply because rain is mentioned there, it doesn't detract from the verses in Matthew nor contribute to some global understanding of "rain" as a whole. (Rain certaintly wasn't a blessing for everyone in the Noah story.) One has to be certain that the "reference" is meant to be harmonized when trying to make an inter-scriptural evaluation and not merely look up in a concordance all instances of the same word in the belief that everywhere the Bible uses the same word it is the intention (of the writers, compilers or God) to harmonize these instances.
-Eduardo
-
hopelesslystained
oro
you come across as being so full of yourself (I've read and followed many of your posts), why don't you just start your own break-off religeon from the jws?? You seem to have an 'oro' answer for everything which you seem to think all should accept. And apparently you are one 'Jack of all Trades' anyway...that is according to your website. peace to you -
Narkissos
Contrary to a very stupid but catchy Country Song, God does not have his angels "pour out the rain" and of course Jesus knew that.
LOL. Off-topic, I would rather have a 1st-century Galilean Jesus sharing popular Jewish beliefs about angels standing behind what we call "natural phenomena" than holding to a modern scientific conception of meteorology...
What I think Job and the Gospel saying have in common, besides the word "rain," is a certain idea of God beyond morals. You are correct in pointing out that it is love beyond justice in Matthew or Luke, vs. "superb indifference" to human standards in Job. The "beyond" remains.
-
justsomedude
Ed,OH! That's what a metaphor is??
Lets not misunderstand what I am taking exception to with regards to what has been said thus far. I was first commenting on how harsh you were with regards to someone elses comments on the bible, when you had no reason to be such.
After you blanketly insulted everyone who had disagreed with you, I again found reason to disagree with your assessment that those speakers recorded in gods inspired word the bible had no need to be scientifically accurate.
Now I can certainly understand why the creation account in Geneis is recorded with what certainly seems to be an earth-centric view of the universe and is filled with scientific errors. It was recorded by men who probably held those types of views and their ignorance is understandable. (though that certainly puts a dent in the divine inspiration theory)
Jesus on the other hand should be held to a different standard. His speech should reflect that he understood scientific matters as he is held to either have set the rules and been the implement of creation, or at the very least been present for the creation of the universe.
JSD
-
Hellrider
Well, who likes rain anyway.
-
Oroborus21
justsomedude,
you have two previous posts in this thread prior to the last.
your first post, you make a good point about what is and what will be continuing debate about the Bible. You further make a good point about mythology - but seem to overlook the fundamental precept and power of myth which is that it is meant to organize human thought and reflects something about humanity. thus even if we assume that the Book of Matthew and these verses are mere myth/folklore/literature, that is uninspired or without any divine origin, you should acknowlege that there may be a moral lesson intended within the text.
As for your reference to "harsh" I assume that goes to my "use your brain" closing which was not meant so much as a snide remark but rather as imperative to Gill to use some common sense and basic literacy since it is patently obvious that he is/was committing several errors. Further I think that his use of an all cap "BIG LIE IN THE BIBLE" attitude justified a little jibe but it was not meant to be personally insulting.
your second post, merely asks whether Jesus should be expected to be factually accurate.
My point in response is that Jesus was factually accurate in that as common observation shows when it rains upon people, it rains upon them without respect to their righteousness or moral standing.
Jesus' statement is not any broader than that and is not meant to be an exposition about the water cycle or scientific in any way. (That is Gill's basic error to read into it something which it is not.)
As for your last comment, (giving the believing view) certainly Jesus as the one through whom God created the universe and being divine has both superhuman knowledge and superior insight into the physical universe. If it had been his intention, he could have easily revealed these things to mankind. That was not his stated purpose and so Jesus, nor does any of the Bible, intend itself to be a book of science or a scientific explanation; although believers hold that where science or the realities of the physical universe intersect with the scriptures, there is no real disharmony.
-Eduardo
-
learntoswim
Jesus on the other hand should be held to a different standard. His speech should reflect that he understood scientific matters as he is held to either have set the rules and been the implement of creation, or at the very least been present for the creation of the universe.
My view is it wasn't meant as a scientific statement. It was a statement about imaprtiality, as others haev been saying. It was a simple analogy to explain the prinicple that God did not discriminate between those he felt were good and those he felt were bad when it came to providing the natural provisions he set in motion at the begining of creation. He wouldn't stop sun or rain upon someone because they were unrightous. This is really clear when reading the surrounding verses. Its seems that the writer is talking about impartiality.