by AK - Jeff 1495 Replies latest jw experiences
Right! I think your brain works very well sizemik. Compromise; not in time, not in space, in POSSIBILITY, ABILITY.
The result of the HOPE is not difficult to attain BUT
The warning means it is also likely (because of evil) that the ending will not be the hope.
From Heaven the failure of Earth is real, but from Earth, not yet.
Isn't it true that Heaven saw (in the future) Earth crash? And everyone wonders why God does not SAY?
How can God say?
Tell me Shanagirl....is Gnostic teaching something you believe in...or something your exploring? I'm curious.
I have not read through the entire thread, unfortunately, dear AKJ (peace to you!), so my response may be duplicative of some others. In response to your post title, I would have to say, no, the "Old Argument" does not hold water. As to your thread question (i.e., "no matter which numbers you use, doesn't this make you arrive at one of the following conclusions?'), I would also have to answer, no, it does not, and that, in fact, there is another choice: that the Most Holy One of Israel has never promised to solve the ills of THIS world... but only those of certain people IN this world. What people? Those with whom He has covenanted to do so... which COULD include anyone and everyone but, unfortunately, does not.
Even so, the trials, tribulations, troubles, problems, and concerns of those certain people are not removed/diverted entirely... nor has such ever been promised as to their lives in THIS world. There is much truth in my Lord's statement, "MY kingdom is NO part of THIS world." To try and hold God accountable, therefore, for the "problems" of and in this world is... well, silly. The "problems" of this world belong to its ruler... and so, you see little or no relief.
Again, one of the problems is that folks believe He is "their" God... because that is what "christianity" falsely teaches. Because they don't truly understand the covenants, either the one with Israel or the one that replaced it. The first covered fleshly Israel (for all Israel accepted it by their vow at Sinai)... and those who joined theirselves to that nation. The second covers those of fleshly Israel who accept it... and those who show themselves to be "Israel" by accepting it, as well.
Many of both groups forgot/forget, however, that "covenants" are contracts... legal agreements by means of which the parties AGREE to perform somehow. If one party fails to perform, the other is usually released from performance and the covenant can be voided. In both of His covenants with man, the Old and the New, the Most Holy One of Israel continued and continues to perform - it is man who keeps breaked HIS vow, HIS agreement as to HIS performance under either.
Please, dear ones - those of you who keep trying to hold the Most Holy One of Israel responsible for the care and well-being of ALL of mankind... you are wrong and out of line. IF you believe in God... such that you believe you have a right to find fault with His "performance", condescend to at least know the TERMS of His agreement TO perform on behalf of mankind: what that performance is, for whom, and under what circumstances. THEN proceed with your attempts (which you will find have no basis).
Until then, however, you are attempting to hold Him to a standard you wouldn't even accept being held to yourselves. There is NO WAY you would consider it right, fair, or even moral that your brother, neighbor, stranger, or even an enemy were allowed to drag YOU into court and bring a claim against YOU... when no agreement ever existed BETWEEN you.
If one is not in the [New] Covenant, which is ratified by the blood of Christ... the Most Holy One of Israel has NO obligation... toward such one OR such one's children/progeny. It is to such one(s) own god(s)... which includes anyone and anything other than Him that such one(s) put THEIR faith in... as well as, by default, the ruler OF this world... that they must look. And we can all see, by the statistics included in the OP just how that is going.
For those who would counter, "Well, He's GOD and so He MUST... because we are His creation!"... I offer that, no... there is NO law that says He MUST... other than His covenant. THAT is what binds the Most Holy One of Israel - THAT is the "document" that obligates Him to care... for HIS sheep. And it is necessary because it is man who turns away from Him... and not the other way around. So, He has left it TO man... to use his (man's) FREE WILL... to decide. For himself... and, if he chooses, his household.
Again, I bid you peace!
A slave of Christ,
SA
Ubermensch, fascinating stuff.
Tell me Shanagirl....is Gnostic teaching something you believe in...or something your exploring? I'm curious.
still thinking
I do feel that Gnostic teachings explain a lot of things that I've always known inside. When I first left the JW's I knew in my heart this WT god was not the True Loving God that I was told he was. I felt the JW's reflected an authoritarian punishing judgemental god that they and most mainstream Christianity teaches. After exporing Gnostic readings especially from the Nag Hammadi Library, a lot of what I read filled in the blanks and unaswered questions. I now can see that there is much about cosmology in the ancient writings that are just barely mentioned in the Bible, yet at the same time confirmed in the Bible writings.
Shana
I agree the gnositc texts make for interesting reading...it is something I am exploring....along with other things. I found what you said interesting and wanted to know how committed you were to a gnostic belief system...although, they are many too...take your pick, I think gnostic beliefs are as varied as christian beliefs are today. But interesting none the less.
Your view? Please share. Try and stick to the point.
I was baptised as a JW. I truly believed I had the truth. I do not think now that I did. I think I was wrong. Maybe in time I will change my viewpoint.
With this in mind I don't think it is wise on my part to judge God's actions. God as creator of everything including so many things of which I have no knowledge must surely be in a better position to judge.
In the Bible when those who went into the wilderness were provided with manna they complained at times about it. If God were to provide food miraculously today we would still have problems of disease, wars, poverty, natural disasters ect. No doubt some would complain why doesnt he do something about these problems. As a JW we believed he would intervene and bring the destruction of the wicked and provide a paradise earth. Some would complain about God's intervention in this way. They would rather limit him to what they see fit as an intervention and so remove his Godship. Then if he is not God he has no need to intervene.
On a personal level I think of Christ's message on giving and the Widow's mite. Giving from our needs. Do I really practise giving. Before I criticise God do I really give out of my needs. Could I sell up and move to a cheaper location and give my extra money to the starving, could I donate a weeks wage and live on the bare essentials or would I rather complain as to why God doesnt save me the trouble and provide for these people.
God's provision of his son as a ransom for all in my view provides the greatest relief possible from all of man's ills and then I wonder as to whether he really needed to do it.
That's my view at this time.
Unfortunately you haven't countered the fact.
You've given me two examples of "views" that are outside the views expressed by the Bible. Views expressed and idealized by mankind.
You didn't state a fact, you stated an opinion, a view and I countered with one.
Your arguments answer no questions, your arguments create arguments against yourself.
Not really, they are classical responses that have never be refuted.
For instance, if free will exists then the 3 conceptions of God (being perfectly good, knowing all, being all powerful) are impossible. Those traits would not allow a creator to instill the idea of free will into his creations. It's a perfectly valid, simple, and logical idea.
According to who? and base don whos interpretation of those 3 qualities?
Anyways, me having the lack of belief in God, my job is not to give you evidence of God's nonexistence. You believing in God makes you the one who needs to provide me with evidence, and you have yet to do so.
Actually, I don't have to rpove anything about God, this is a thread about whether the notion of a perfectly Good God and evil can co-exist and the moment there is possibility for a perfectly good God to allow for evil then they are compatiable.
Philosophically, a creator without evil within can exist and stand by while evil happens. His standing by can be due to indifference or to some personal purpose. But in the world we live in, why in the hell would anyone worship that God?
Birth defects, tsunamis, famine, warfare killing innocent children....etc., etc. If He doesn't cause it, He still doesn't stop it.
I know the main argument against what I say will focus on objecting to "standing by."
Philosophically, a creator without evil within can exist and stand by while evil happens. His standing by can be due to indifference or to some personal purpose. But in the world we live in, why in the hell would anyone worship that God?
That is a far valid question IMO.
For a believer, God exists and evil exist and as such the two must be reconciled.
But that is another thread I guess...if we don't already have one.
