by Terry 37 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
Doesn't that make it abundantly clear that in Jesus view "God" could not be identified with human parents?
Awww, you missed the finesse!
A human parent is different from the Parent of a human.
If God is your father he is the Parent of you, but; not your human parent.
Jesus had such a parent. We are, of course, talking about the definition of "children of god" as vessals worthily made by the Great Potter in heaven. The chosen ones are spiritual children and God is their heavenly Father.
I've gotten the impression from reading the posts of Little Toe and Auld Soul that they don't buy into The Bible 100% as we see it today. So, Terry, you won't get much traction by trying to pin whatever logical fallacies you find in The Bible on them.
Am I calling this one right Gentlemen?
Open Mind
Both Adam and Eve lacked what they desired most. How is that the best of all possible worlds?
Wouldn't it be necessary at a minimum that the nature of humanity exactly match their limits?
If you choose to define "yearning/longing for what you can`t have" as evil, then yes, you are right. I choose not to. In my language we have a saying that goes something like: "Only that which is lost, lasts forever". So I don`t see that as an argument against Gods existence. That doesn`t mean I believe in him/her/it, of course...
Open Mind,
Terry is using a narrative from the Bible to attempt to make a point about God. I am inviting him to use the entire narrative, and the psychological implications of the entirety, if he intends to discredit God in his conclusions.
Otherwise, he is cherry picking, from his own reference, data which supports a conclusion he arrived at independently of that reference—a practice called intellectual dishonesty. I am eager to see where he plans to take his discussion, since he says at the outset that whether the original garden was the "BEST of all POSSIBLE WORLDS" "depends on this...!" Obviously, the world we have now is not the best of all possible worlds. None of us believe it is, except those few of us who give in to feelings of futility, so I hope he wasn't suggesting that the world we live in is supposedly the best of all possible worlds. I would think him a suicide risk if that were the case.
I strongly suspect that needling the believers on the forum was his intent, as it often seems to be. The sad reality is that he tries to do so by misrepresenting the very account he is using as his basis for argument. He includes God, Adam, and Eve from the story, but edits out the serpent so that it appears Eve innately desired something that God was unwilling to give. That conclusion is not supported by the reference. In fact, the narrative flatly eliminates that conclusion.
And he knows it, the sophist.
Respectfully,
AuldSoul
Terry - like many other people, I seem to be draw to your threads because they are a cut above the average .
Looking at this one, it would make sense to me if you were examining the story of Adam & Eve with a genuine desire to understand the nature of ‘God.’ And by doing so, learning more about the human condition.
The reality is that you have moved way beyond giving credence to such a simplistic story which attempts to explain the origin of human life on earth. Little Toe, your sparing partner, questions your motive, seeing this as another attempt to discredit the god of the bible.
I understand how you feel, because I too am still tempted to take frustrated swipes at the Bible and people who still believe it. I post a lot less nowadays because I realise that we all exist at our own level and arrange ideas and information in a way that makes sense to us. I feel very little need to try to change people. Mind you that could change!
A lot of your threads emphasis that there is only one actual reality. This is true in a scientific way but we all build our own paradigm of the world in our own minds and see any criticism of our belief or world view as a threat. I posted along these lines on your thread on being wrong.
Before I waffle on too much my point is this. I believe that you are wasting your impressive talents dwelling on such material. By now I would have expected you to have dismissed the Bible from your collection of credible literary works.
t
Consider too; were Adam "perfect" he would act perfectly.Consider, does something created flawless of necessity remain so?
No. Nice try, again. Your sophistry is a nuisance. Easily deconstructing it is highly amusing.
Something? or Someone?
We are talking about a vessal made by God (Romans 9 potter analogy) which, according to scripture fall into two categories:
1.Vessals fit for destruction (imperfectly made)
2.Vessals worth of us (perfectly made)
The Potter is God.
A pot made to hold water must hold water to be perfectly made. A leaky pot must be broken. (Potters can reuse the clay from a broken pot, by the way; nothing is wasted.)
Your argument doesn't hold water. It must be broken!
For the sake of arguement, Adam and Eve were childlike creatures who walked around in the nuddy giving animals names. They only came to knowledge after the fruit had done it work. When we warn a child it oftens forgets or ignores the warning in pursuit of its immediate craving. They often fail to weigh up the pros and cons.
A parent doesn't bind a child with rules the child cannot understand and then expect the child to obey. Further, binding a child with rules the child cannot understand or obey, and then, punishing them severely is worse.
We are faced with several problems; not the least of which is one of justness and justice.
Adam and Eve were, no more and no less, exactly what God made them to be. The ridiculous aspect of all this is somehow empowering Adam and Eve beyond their own god-given nature.
They were pots made by the Great Potter required to hold water and they leaked! They were then broken. But first, they were allowed to reproduce their broken-leaky-pottedness. Eventually, the Great Potter busted them up.
Make up your mind. Pots are things.
Something, if we stick to your argument. This is easy! I used to think you were smart.
"Vessels fit for destruction" are vessels which in the firing become defective. Your lack of knowledge of pot making is showing.
Respectfully,
AuldSoul
I've gotten the impression from reading the posts of Little Toe and Auld Soul that they don't buy into The Bible 100% as we see it today. So, Terry, you won't get much traction by trying to pin whatever logical fallacies you find in The Bible on them.
Am I calling this one right Gentlemen?
They are taking the strategy Rome took (eventually) against Hannibal. They chose to disengage.
Both Adam and Eve lacked what they desired most. How is that the best of all possible worlds?
Wouldn't it be necessary at a minimum that the nature of humanity exactly match their limits?
If you choose to define "yearning/longing for what you can`t have" as evil, then yes, you are right. I choose not to. In my language we have a saying that goes something like: "Only that which is lost, lasts forever". So I don`t see that as an argument against Gods existence. That doesn`t mean I believe in him/her/it, of course...
We divide "desire" into two components: want as opposed to need.
What we need we cannot but desire.
If humans did not desire sex there would be no posterity.
If humans did not desire food they'd starve.
If humans did not desire to better themselves they'd end up on the bottom of the food chain.
My point?
The desire of the humans in the Garden of Eden was a need to be like their father knowing good and bad. It was insuperable.
Otherwise, it becomes inexplicable as the actions of sane and perfectly made thinkers to (by default) choose death over being like god.
