The significance of this image...

by Awakened07 46 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Narkissos

  Awakened,

  I will just briefly comment on Deuteronomy 32:4 as it seems to be a key reference in your argument.

  You seem here to depend on the WT's frequent application of this verse to initial creation -- meaning, in effect, "his work (= the result of his creative activity, what he made in the beginning) was"perfect". Please notice that this is not at all what the context is about. The whole chapter is about Yhwh's special dealings with Israel in history (or, actually, legend): Israel, not the universe, or earth, or even mankind, is what is "created" / "made" / "established" in v. 6. And God's "work" doesn't end with the initial setting up of Israel. It includes all he has done since, both for (v. 10ff) and against (v. 15ff) "his people," and what he is yet expected to do in the prophetic future (v. 34ff).

  From this perspective, v. 4 appears as the most general and timeless of statements. The Hebrew phrase is actually verbless, hence tenseless: tmym p`lw, "perfect his doing": whatever Yhwh "does" (not only makes, as in "creation" proper) is "perfect" -- above criticism. This applies to all (perceived) divine actions in Israel's (imaginary) past and future.

  Nothing could be more foreign to this thinking than the idea of a clockwork universe initially made "perfect" but then left to its autonomous "working" and eventual decay. In many Bible texts, "creation" is first thought as creatio continua. God "makes" every being and event. This is particularly evident in Psalm 104 (directly reflecting Egyptian influence, cf. the Hymn to Atum) or Wisdom literature where God makes the rich and the poor, even the wicked. This remains largely true in late texts as Deutero-Isaiah or even Ecclesiastes. Whatever is or happens God makes. And this is "perfect" -- beyond criticism as the potter's work is beyond the pot's criticism.

  This, of course, is only one line of thinking among others in the Bible. But it is so different from our usual understanding of (initial) creation that it is worth stressing imo.
• 

  Awakened07

  I will just briefly comment on Deuteronomy 32:4 as it seems to be a key reference in your argument

  I actually thought about it yesterday, and found that the verse could very well be understood the way you describe it, so I'm not going to argue about that. I would not say that it's a key reference in my argument, to the point that my argument stands or falls on that scripture, though; I included it because it is often used to show that God is perfect by those who profess that view, but if you yank that scripture and my explanation of it out of my posts, there's still an argument there in the rest of them.

  But look: What I was trying to do here (in this thread), was to argue a point with those who believe God and His creation is perfect. Catholics certainly says so, as do JWs and LDS. And I would guess many others, like many episcopalians. And so does Islam (search all those pages for references of 'perfect'). Only when I got here did I find Christians who actually don't believe this.

  It's hard to make a goal when the goal posts keep moving, though. I can't possibly argue every single one of the many millions of personal convictions and interpretations of 'independent' believers. But I think I tried to adapt to the new arguments as they emerged in this thread, and have argued the point from all sides now. Both what the case is if God is perfect and so His creation, and if He isn't perfect and/or neither His creation. I don't feel like repeating myself here. That said, here are some:

  "Cliff notes" of my points in this thread:

  • Many, many Bible based (and some non-Bible based) religions and denominations teach that God is perfect.
  • If God is perfect, His creation doesn't show it on many levels, and He must have willfully allowed potentially harmful things to happen (like asteroids, etc.).
  • If that is said to be because His creation was initially perfect but was affected by the fall of mankind, then the fact that galaxies were colliding millions of years before the fall of man would discredit that explanation, in my opinion, because:
  • Galaxies are not "perfectly colliding". If they were, we would not have any asteroids or comets or meteorites here on earth. God would 'guide' it all, including those potentially harmful objects in our vicinity. He has created a protective barrier in the form of our atmosphere, but that barrier isn't perfect, as it doesn't work on the largest objects, which after all are the most deadly.
  • If God is not, and has never been perfect as was put forward by posters in this thread (perfect in the sense of "can't do anything wrong or faulty or lacking and is the complete being"), and neither His creation, then we must question His "almightiness" and omnipotence: - If His creation is not perfect, is it because He is not perfect, and if He is not perfect, is it because He's not able to be? And if He's not able to be perfect and/or create perfection, is He then still almighty and omnipotent?
  • Natural phenomenons have been taken out of God's hands one-by-one over the centuries. He once directly controlled the weather - now He only directly controls the galaxies? Does He really? If so, why are there asteroids etc. hitting earth? Why are the galaxies colliding? Why are stars blowing up?
  • If stars, galaxies, explosions, collisions etc. in the universe is for our benefit and visual pleasure, then how come we've only been able to actually see it at any detail in the last 100 years or so? Why did God create 'fireworks' so far away that even today, we can't see it? Was it created for the angels? Why create physical objects for the visual pleasure of angels? Is their realm empty? Could He not have created something beautiful for them in their realm instead? Did He do it for Himself? Again, why not create something beautiful in His own realm instead, that both He and His angels could find joy from?
  • When (if) we say "God's word is true, period", we say that it's beyond reproach, that we can't ask questions about it. 'The Bible says it's the word of God, and since God's word is true, the Bible is the word of God'. If people several hundred or thousands of years ago had been content with this, we would have precious little of the knowledge we currently have of the nature around us. We wouldn't have been able to enjoy God's "fireworks" at all, because we wouldn't question God's creation or find out how it works (why find out how it works when we know that God is doing it all?).

  Thanks for your input (all of you who have contributed).
• 

  FlipThis

  photoshopped

  no, I just lightened it so we could see the real truth....

  the devil did it.
• 

  Narkissos

  Awakened,

  If I read you correctly, one implicit assumption behind your argument is: what is "perfect" cannot be (potentially or actually) "harmful to mankind".

  However natural this objection may sound to us, I believe it has been thoroughly addressed some 2,500 years ago in the Yhwh discourses at the end of the book of Job (chapters 38--41). In those texts neither "fall" nor "sin" comes into the picture. Yet we have a rather unsettling portrait of "God" caring at least equally for what is indifferent or potentially harmful to mankind as to mankind itself. The "good news" is the "bad news": everything simply doesn't revolve around us.

  I personally read such texts as "man's words" rather than "God's Word". From this perspective, I think they reflect a remarkable intellectual effort, which is both necessary and impossible: trying to uncenter ourselves from our own "world vision". In modern philosophical terms, it's the paradox of human anti-humanism.
• 

  erandir

  Very nice...however I have this strange craving for shrimp now.
• 

  eclipse

  If stars, galaxies, explosions, collisions etc. in the universe is for our benefit and visual pleasure, then how come we've only been able to actually see it at any detail in the last 100 years or so? Why did God create 'fireworks' so far away that even today, we can't see it?

  Just wanted to say that I think about this very question.

  And since the stars and galaxies that we are seeing are billions of years old, what does the universe look like presently?
• 

  Narkissos

  what does the universe look like presently?

  That's one of the most breathtaking consequences of astrophysics plus relativity to my admittedly unscientific mind: present is local -- time is space -- the temporal and spatial meanings of "presence" meet.