There is No Morality Without God

by whereami 161 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

NewChapter

Tec, I don't think he claimed to make corrections. I think he claimed to expand what already was known. He said he and his father were in perfect agreement. New Light if you will.
Tell me this. Do you think it would have been so hard to explain an extremely simplistic version of evolution? I mean if the information was spiritual, and the people trusted in that, then they would have accepted the explanation. And if they wouldn't or couldn't accept the explanation, do you think that God would- well - change the story? That would be dishonest.
Even though they didn't have the same knowledge we have today, they certainly had the same brains and were very able to grasp concepts. I don't claim that god should have gone into deep discussion on DNA. Just the second grade version of evolution. To keep things honest. To consider future mankind that would come to doubt when they saw the creation account was impossible. You know if the bible was meant for all mankind and not just for the ancient Hebrews, then we would have been considered.
NC
tec

NC - do you know how long it took people to become convinced that germs were real things? How long they denied them? If people cannot touch, see, smell, taste, or hear something with their physical senses, then it is not real. And a second grade version of evolution would still require terms that would not have been undertsood in even the smallest sense.
Besides, you are going on the presumption that it is a proven theory that humans evolved in the manner that you described last page. We're babes in a universe that we barely have a grasp of. We're as ignorant of scientific reality to people two thousand years from now, as the Israelites are to us, from two thousand years ago.
To want a sign from the bible showing scientific congruence (as we currently know it)... well, where does that leave all the people from the thousands of years before us who did not have the technology to prove what was shared? That science wouldn't mean anything to them. It would be babble. Couldn't prove it, so few would believe it until such a time as it could be proven. I think, personally, that he has shared things like that, in terms they could understand... but that we haven't yet reached the point where we can 'prove' it. But that's besides the point.
And he did come to make corrections. Not to the law as it was given... but to the law as it was written down and understood. Or misunderstood, rather. "It was not this way in the beginning".... means that somewhere along the way, someone fell away form what was originally intended. Because they had understood and/or been taught falsely. That can't be that hard to understand... how many false things are taught now, and all based on the same book? Why would it have been different among the 'clergy' then? What would be the point in calling Christ the truth, and the Word of God... if they already had it? But you are right in that He said He and His Father are in perfect agreement. Which is how I know that God is as Christ showed him to be... not as the OT, or the clergy, or the scribes, showed him to be. Though even in the bible, there are accounts of prophets come to try and correct people, telling them that God desires mercy and love from them toward others. That the son does not die for the father's sins, or vice versa... even though in the same bible, it is written that the son does die for the father's sin.
Which account is right? Look to the Truth and the Word for the answer.
My kids are calling with the Matri (eks isn't working still), so I gotta run :)
Peace,
Tammy
EntirelyPossible

Then perhaps simply inspiring them to write down and learn the scientific method would have helped, along with a little starter knowledge. Shouldn't have been too much to manage. Instead we got slavery, murder, court intrigue, sex ... the kind of stuff you see in TV dramas.
NewChapter

If people cannot touch, see, smell, taste, or hear something with their physical senses, then it is not real
Okay Tec. And yet, this group of people could accept that there were angels, demons, satan, heaven etc. because they believed they were being told the truth. I don't think they needed to know about germs and such. They could see, smell, taste and hear all of the animals in their experience. They could have been told they were created individually and according to their kinds----or their god could have been honest and told them they grew out of each other.
Do you think they would have had a difficult time understanding that the kinds grew from each other? Then where did Eve come from? If this god could say that Eve came from a rib in Adam's side, and be believed, certainly he could have told them that some reptiles grew wings and some grew fur and they became different kinds.
Considering the mythology of the day, I don't think this would have been overly confusing for them. God didn't have to say HOW it happend, he only needed to say that it DID happen. And then, 5000 years later, when people he claimed to love came to an accurate knowledge of science, they would not have pegged it all as a myth.
He didn't tell them because humans couldn't have conceived of it without being given that knowledge, and their god did not give them that knowledge because their god did not know any more than they did because they created him.
And tell me about those prophets that came to correct the people to teach them love and mercy. ??? What about the prophet that left his concubine to be raped to death, and then cut up her dead body and sent the pieces throughout the land. How about calling down fire to consume the worshippers of Baal. I don't think they were correcting or teaching much about love and mercy.
And finally, the science would not have needed to mean anything to those people. They accepted without question that god created eveything in 6 days and the order he created it. They also would have accepted the simplified truth of the matter just as unquestioningly as they accepted the lie. They would not have viewed it as scientific. They simply would have accepted it as their origin. They would not have questioned HOW did that happen, because god did it. They didn't question how god could mix clay and water and make a man. They didn't question how a rib was taken from adam and eve was made. If they can swallow all that, certainly 2nd grade evolution would not have sent them into a confused panic. They simply would have accepted it.
NC
tec

Again, NC... assuming that what we know of evolution is correct. Which, given our track record... I doubt that it is. We have some pieces and we know some things, but even what we do know could change (in a small or a big way) with the additon of any piece of the puzzle. And just because it might have meant something to them, doesn't mean it would have meant something to the people 500 years later, or a thousand years later. Besides, the bible says that they were created according to their kinds... it does not say how, nor does it say how long that process took. It does not deny evolution. It does not even have to be taken literally, for that matter. Just a simple version to describe the spiritual, and also a moral lesson.
(Do different kinds grow from each other, btw... or do different kinds just continue to adapt to their surroundings as per their survival? I always get kinds/genus/family/etc confused with one another. Becasue humans did not evolve out of a dog-type species. Nor elephants from apes. So they would have to have accurate knowledge of what those different things were to accurately describe the process for future generations to have their 'aha' moment.)
But what makes us (our generation) so special right now, that the proof of something taught back then is within our scientific grasp today? I think there are things, like I said... but those are not yet proven. So there are scientific things to be gleaned from some of the writings. They're just couched in a language/phrase that could be understandable then... as well as understood more deeply now.
And tell me about those prophets that came to correct the people to teach them love and mercy. ??? What about the prophet that left his concubine to be raped to death, and then cut up her dead body and sent the pieces throughout the land. How about calling down fire to consume the worshippers of Baal. I don't think they were correcting or teaching much about love and mercy.
Are you asking me to quote scriptures? I can but you can probably look them up as easily as me. I don't know them off by heart, I only remember what is said. What about the times that God corrects them in saying that he wants fasting done as acts of mercy, of loosening chains of oppression? Of helping the orphans and widows as proper fasting? Or when he says to them that he desires mercy, not sacrifice? Or the ones I mentioned above, about blaming and punishing a child for the sins of the father being wrong. That is a wrong teaching that someone tried to correct.
So it doesn't matter how many you can list that seem to show the opposite. The OT is full of things like what you wrote. But the OT is not the truth or the life or the Word. Christ is all of these things. You can't see the Father unless you're looking through His Son. Then you can better recognize a false teaching from a true teaching.
Then perhaps simply inspiring them to write down and learn the scientific method would have helped, along with a little starter knowledge
Helped what? The people who needed scientific proof to believe? Plenty don't. But even so, if people believe in God, does that suddenly mean that they obey or love Him?
Peace,
Tammy
EntirelyPossible

(Do different kinds grow from each other, btw... or do different kinds just continue to adapt to their surroundings as per their survival? I always get kinds/genus/family/etc confused with one another. Becasue humans did not evolve out of a dog-type species. Nor elephants from apes. So they would have to have accurate knowledge of what those different things were to accurately describe the process for future generations to have their 'aha' moment.)
Qcmbr

tec - please please read up on evolution properly before you embarrass yourself with statements like this:
assuming that what we know of evolution is correct. Which, given our track record... I doubt that it is
this is like saying 'assuming we know that the sun is hot. which given our track record...I doubt that it is'
Evolution is factually proven, observed and studied continuously by brilliant minds across the world. There will be great advances in understanding the mechanisms, there will be additional fossils found that will explain whens and hows but there will never ever be a replacement for the fact of evolution ( we will not be going back to a magic creation day), the fact of gradual change in imperfect self-replicating organisms driven by natural selection over vast amounts of time.
NewChapter

Again, NC... assuming that what we know of evolution is correct.
Correct. We are working with a theory that has stood up to rigorous testing, but it is still a theory. Creation as presented in Genesis has been unquestioningly falisified. If a wise a powerful god was behind that, he would have presented something a little less false.
Do different kinds grow from each other, btw... or do different kinds just continue to adapt to their surroundings as per their survival? I always get kinds/genus/family/etc confused with one another. Becasue humans did not evolve out of a dog-type species. Nor elephants from apes
It works like a tree with many branches. So dogs evolved from a different branch than humans, and the human branch broke away from the chimpanzee branch much later in time. To say animals grew from each other is a simplification that would not be inaccurate yet would not tell all the details.
Because science works with theories, there will always be the possibility that one will be falisfied. Like when researchers claim they found a particle moving faster than the speed of light. If they DID find that, and they can repeatedly observe that, then they have falsified Einstein's theory that nothing moves faster than the speed of light. But science can prove what it not true. That's the dynamic--finding a truth through falsifying other possiblities. They have falsified Genesis.
Okay---we've hijacked this thread long enough. We won't be convincing each other. Thanks for the conversation---although I'm not rejecting that you may want to answer this, just that I'll be done with it for a while. But I will definitely read your response.
tec

Qcmbr - Don't worry, I'm not embarrased ;) You may be embarrased for me if you like... but I don't think you get what I am saying. Yes, evolution is a fact... well, as much as we can know anything is a fact. Animals evolve. Even IF that was all just adaptation, it is still evolution.
But I didn't say 'assuming that evolution' is correct. I said assuming that what we know of evolution is correct. Perhaps that would have been clearer if I had stated assuming that the implications that we draw from the science of evolution is correct.
I never had a 'magic creation day' and I still don't. Science has theories on the beginnings of life, the world, the universe (s). None of those theories make any sort of statement about God or a creator. They just present the scientific possibilities that we are aware of at this moment.
They have falsified Genesis.
They have falified a literal seven day Genesis creation account. But I don't know very many people who look at Genesis that way. I certainly don't think the Jewish people do.
Regardless, I know that neither of us is going to convince the other... just share and hope for some understanding of one another's views. I also enjoyed the conversation, and I'm sure our paths will cross again ;)
Peace,
Tammy
Terry

Let's no lose sight of this important fact:
We DON'T WANT TO DIE and any belief that provides escape is MORE APPEALING than one that does not.
Science only temporaily treats our wounds. We STILL DIE.
Religion says: "The best is yet to come!"
Is it any wonder we are more naturally attracted to a PROMISE of a never ending party rather than rotting in a grave?
Would you rather have a Loving Father in the sky or Apes for ancestors and oblivion at the end?
This is really the most persuasive foundation to defending the "faith".
Faith is ALL YOU ARE EVER GOING TO GET as payment on that promise for eternal life.
Meanwhile, science lays out facts and there is no punishment if you turn up your nose.

There is No Morality Without God

Share this