dafuk did i just read?
Proof that Satan is in control of the WT and THAT is why the new change will come.....
by EndofMysteries 92 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
Elephant
...
-
Leolaia
on the first point...I believe that Rutherford's assertions were being questioned DUE to errors in names and attributing references to the wrong writers...the problem is ...Rutherford's point was the presence of sun worship, NOT who wrote about sun worship... on the second point...you stated the following-
I don't know what you are talking about. Rutherford was influenced by Hislop, Hislop claimed a bunch of things that weren't true about ancient religion and about Babylon.
Hislop said stuff like, "It was an essential principle of the Babylonian system, that the Sun or Baal was the one only God. When, therefore, Tammuz was worshipped as God incarnate, that implied also that he was an incarnation of the Sun" (chapter 3), or "Nimrod, or Adon, or Adonis, of Babylon, was the great war-god, Odin was the same" (chapter 4). This is nonsensical; it's like saying "The main god of the Hebrew system was Odin, the father of Hercules, who was God incarnate, and he was the father of Vishnu, who was part fish and part eagle....That's what the Jews believed". What Hislop writes has nothing to do with what the ancient Babylonians or Canaanites actually believed.
Rutherford wrote things like Nimrod invented religion, and then after he died his mother induced the people to worship him, along with herself and her son. That doesn't come from anything from the Bible or ancient history; it entirely comes from Hislop's brain.
...thereby admitting there are common similarities however fundamental or 'expected' ...
Which have NOTHING to do with historical relationship or contact between peoples. There are things to the human experience that are universal because WE ARE HUMAN and we live on the same planet. Pointing out that, say, both the Egyptians and Babylonians worshipped the sun has nothing to do with showing a contact of ideas.
No scholar believes that Egyptian religion came from Babylon or Mesopotamia. It developed independently, it has great antiquity, and there wasn't even influence from Mesopotamia until the Middle Bronze Age.
you also point to 'derivatives'...your own language indicates a point of origin and assimilation in regards to the subject...
I was talking about Mesopotamia, yeah of course the Babylonians were influenced by the earlier Sumerians in the same area. But as I mentioned, Babylon was very much a Johnny-come-lately. It had nothing to do with the "invention of religion". That's a myth.
...in other words...just because you, as an individual doesn't believe in Satan, doesn't mean Satan isn't real?... ...what about the idea or concept of the word EVIL?...would you agree that EVIL exists?...
I think I already answered that in detail.
-
John Kesler
Leolaia: Nature is amoral and indifferent to moral concepts. But we humans view nature in moral terms, because it affects us. An earthquake-tsunami disaster is a great evil because it kills people and ruins lives. Theism often works nature into that moral order, e.g. God/the gods/Satan/etc. bring(s) destruction on a people on account of their sins (the Flood story being a classic example of this). But that is motivated by theodicean concerns; if there are supernatural beings who have power over nature, THEN there must be some moral context for how nature operates. I don't see a compelling reason to see nature that way. Nature just is. Black holes, colliding galaxies, asteriod impacts....the universe is a dangerous place and entropy is the universal drive leading from order to disorder; its mindless, its violent, its amoral. Humans are not mindless and we recognize value and worth and a whole host of other concepts (thanks to our intelligent brains) that accord meaning to things like good and evil. The Eden narrative is a pretty good fable illustrating this point. It takes knowledge to perceive good and evil. But if the sun explodes in a supernova and destroys our planet, that would be a horrible evil to us, perhaps the worst evil of all time. But the sun isn't evil; its a physical system that has both beneficial and detrimental effects and it could give life as well as destroy.
Good post, Leolaia. When one realizes that we live in an indifferent universe, there isn't a reason to posit supernatural beings, either benevolent or malevolent. Here are just a few passages that bear out your point.
Amos 4:7-9
7 And I also withheld the rain from you
when there were still three months to the harvest;
I would send rain on one city,
and send no rain on another city;
one field would be rained upon,
and the field on which it did not rain withered;
8 so two or three towns wandered to one town
to drink water, and were not satisfied;
yet you did not return to me, says Yahweh.9 I struck you with blight and mildew;
I laid waste your gardens and your vineyards;
the locust devoured your fig trees and your olive trees;
yet you did not return to me, says Yahweh.Deuteronomy 11:13-17
13 If you will only heed his every commandment that I am commanding you today—loving Yahweh your God, and serving him with all your heart and with all your soul— 14 then he will give the rain for your land in its season, the early rain and the later rain, and you will gather in your grain, your wine, and your oil; 15 and he will give grass in your fields for your livestock, and you will eat your fill. 16 Take care, or you will be seduced into turning away, serving other gods and worshipping them, 17 for then the anger of Yahweh will be kindled against you and he will shut up the heavens, so that there will be no rain and the land will yield no fruit; then you will perish quickly from the good land that Yahweh is giving you.
2 Chronicles 7:13-14
13 When I shut up the heavens so that there is no rain, or command the locust to devour the land, or send pestilence among my people, 14 if my people who are called by my name humble themselves, pray, seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin and heal their land.
Zechariah 14:17-19
17 If any of the families of the earth do not go up to Jerusalem to worship the King, Yahweh of hosts, there will be no rain upon them. 18 And if the family of Egypt do not go up and present themselves, then on them shall come the plague that Yahweh inflicts on the nations that do not go up to keep the festival of booths. 19 Such shall be the punishment of Egypt and the punishment of all the nations that do not go up to keep the festival of booths.
The last passage is also a good one to use when discussing preterism: when, and how, precisely, was this fulfilled by 70 AD?
-
Elephant
leolia-
again...on the first point...you unintentionally emphasize Rutherford's point...substitute X god for Y god or vice versa...and its the SAME idea or concept...
on the second point you state-
Which have NOTHING to do with historical relationship or contact between peoples. There are things to the human experience that are universal because WE ARE HUMAN and we live on the same planet. Pointing out that, say, both the Egyptians and Babylonians worshipped the sun has nothing to do with showing a contact of ideas
...thus my question to Christ Alone was, why is it so hard to assume that Egypt did not adopt religious concepts or ideas from another people, nation, civilization etc?...as you said, we do live in the same planet...
...i'm assuming your argument here is the 'lack' of written 'historical relationships'?...of which we do not need to infer your second sentence...again WE ARE HUMAN...
I was talking about Mesopotamia, yeah of course the Babylonians were influenced by the earlier Sumerians in the same area. But as I mentioned, Babylon was very much a Johnny-come-lately. It had nothing to do with the "invention of religion". That's a myth.
...we are not arguing on this point, we both understand that religion is created or makes an appearance at some point, wether in Babylon , Mesopotamia, or Sumeria, or before...fact is religion appears somewhere at some point...
Regarding my last question…actually, you gave your definition of evil…you did not clearly state wether you accepted this definition or not…you actually gave two definitions, the second one regarding evil in nature i agree with you...as to the first, you commonly label something a ‘myth’, but you didn’t do this with this definition…
Well, "evil" has an existence within a system of morality that is a fundamental part of human society and culture; evil is what we humans call violations of that moral order, whether at a more universal human level (e.g. violations of human rights), or within a more socially-dependent/constructed level (e.g. violations of specific laws).
…so do you believe in it or not?...
-
King Solomon
As Leo said, evil is an IDEA, and is arbitrary, subjective, and a matter of opinion. There is no tanglible physical object upon which some concepts are based (eg Mt Everest, water, etc).
Consider this example:
To a rat, the house cat that is eating it alive is the pure epitome of evil, and every cell of the rat's body is trying to escape the grips of the cat's claws and deadly fangs. If you asked the rat (or read the "rat Bible"), their Satan would be feline.
To the owner of the cat, the feline isn't evil: he bought the cat specifically to deal with a rodent infestation in his house, and to him, the cat is not evil, but doing his will.
However, did I mention that the rat is actually the Morro Bay kangaroo rat, an endangered species that is protected by Federal law?
Now, suppose the cat's owner allowed the cat to freely wander the neighborhood, and the cat hunted kangaroo rats on land specifically set aside as habitat for their populations to recover?
To the authorities who manage the habitat (Bureau of Land Management), the cat's OWNER is the bad guy, deserving of punishment for allowing his cat to wander free. Ask an environmentalist, and they'll say the OWNER is EVIL for allowing his cat to driving an endangered species closer to extinction, and the owner is demonized.
See how that works? There is no objective EVIL. Your perspective likely changed, depending on the facts offered: there is no objective or universal evil in the example. Evil is simply what we all AGREE it to be, and some are willing to believe in imaginary evil figures when there's no reason to do so. Fortunately, REALITY is not open to a show of hands, where the majority agreeing upon the existence of Santa Claus doesn't mean that he exists.
The subjective nature of evil doesn't mean that humanity hasn't created LAWS which assume the concept of "good/bad" (or "desirable/undesirable") actions, which can be defined in terms of social contracts, and contributing to social harmony. But to assume that we need to burden our thinking with religious ideology (where "sin" and "evil" are colored by religious connotations, presupposing an existence of a moral law-giver) is foolish.
-
Elephant
Solomon...I think Leoalia and I agree on the whole evil in nature thing...
-
sabastious
Well, "evil" has an existence within a system of morality that is a fundamental part of human society and culture; evil is what we humans call violations of that moral order, whether at a more universal human level (e.g. violations of human rights), or within a more socially-dependent/constructed level (e.g. violations of specific laws). I don't think it means much outside that system. Nature is amoral and indifferent to moral concepts. But we humans view nature in moral terms, because it affects us. An earthquake-tsunami disaster is a great evil because it kills people and ruins lives. Theism often works nature into that moral order, e.g. God/the gods/Satan/etc. bring(s) destruction on a people on account of their sins (the Flood story being a classic example of this). But that is motivated by theodicean concerns; if there are supernatural beings who have power over nature, THEN there must be some moral context for how nature operates. I don't see a compelling reason to see nature that way. Nature just is. Black holes, colliding galaxies, asteriod impacts....the universe is a dangerous place and entropy is the universal drive leading from order to disorder; its mindless, its violent, its amoral. Humans are not mindless and we recognize value and worth and a whole host of other concepts (thanks to our intelligent brains) that accord meaning to things like good and evil. The Eden narrative is a pretty good fable illustrating this point. It takes knowledge to perceive good and evil. But if the sun explodes in a supernova and destroys our planet, that would be a horrible evil to us, perhaps the worst evil of all time. But the sun isn't evil; its a physical system that has both beneficial and detrimental effects and it could give life as well as destroy.
Leolaia, that's a pretty general response to my post. It seems almost perfectly inline with the secular explanation of evil, which is highly problematic. Correct me if I am wrong, but basically what you are saying is that humans, in reality, are amoral and that morality is actually just an illusion caused by evolving intelligence. However, what human antiquity proves is that we progressed from amorality (grey) to morality (black and white). That's why I say that "Satan" is best described as a pack of cannibalistic chimpanzees. The choice to completely destroy a neighboring tribe comes from the need, or percieved need, to survive within the canvas of evolution or changing circumstance. But how does that momentum stop? This is where Purpose, and God comes in, in my opinion.
Consider a man in the Middle East who is in prison for murdering his sister. The reason why he murdered her, in part, is because his whole family guilted him into doing it. What was her infraction? Sexual promiscuity which was a deviation from their religious beliefs. Can you imagine convincing your family member to kill another family member over such an issue? However, the man is in prison now because the government he resided within recognized his action as a punishable crime and justice was properly served. This is a good example of how the process of "chaos" transforms into "order" and it's not an overnight process. Chaos doesn't just become order, it evolves into it. So here we have an example of old world thinking where the family conspires to kill their own, which is then corrected by a new world thinking (thou shalt not kill). The same could be said about the obvious differences between the OT and the NT in the Holy Bible. It shows a clear progression from chaos to order, but it doesn't show us the end, it tells us that WE are the end.
Have you ever given consideration to the Transcendental Argument for God? Such a concept, imo, is best explained by the chinese proverb: before the beginning of great brilliance there MUST be chaos. That proverb was written many thousands of years ago by people who sought to understand their environment on a very deep level. They too had natural disasters that plagued their lands, pestilences, wars and famines. Necessity is the mother of invention, adversity reveals genius, prosperity conceals it.
If you don't mind me asking, which label do you most identify with: a) theism b) deism c) agnosticism d) other
-Sab
-
Leolaia
I can't really respond adequately....I'm about to catch a flight in five minutes...I'll limit myself to just this....
It seems almost perfectly inline with the secular explanation of evil, which is highly problematic. Correct me if I am wrong, but basically what you are saying is that humans, in reality, are amoral and that morality is actually just an illusion caused by evolving intelligence.
No....I do not think of morality as an illusion and that humans are basically amoral. I think mindless nature is, but we have intelligence and we are social animals and we have developed systems of morality that recognizes rights and wrongs....Nature doesn't give a damn about rights, but people do. Not perfectly, not anywhere approaching what idealism might construe as a perfectly moral society. But I think we are moving in a direction from amorality to morality, where actions and behaviors are accorded moral and immoral values, and where we work thorough issues pertaining to respect for others, equality, ending oppression, etc.
However, what human antiquity proves is that we progressed from amorality (grey) to morality (black and white).
I agree with the directionality of change (thanks to us being humans with culture and brains), but I don't follow the grey/black/white characterization.
-
sabastious
No....I do not think of morality as an illusion and that humans are basically amoral. I think mindless nature is, but we have intelligence and we are social animals and we have developed systems of morality that recognizes rights and wrongs....Nature doesn't give a damn about rights, but people do. Not perfectly, not anywhere approaching what idealism might construe as a perfectly moral society. But I think we are moving in a direction from amorality to morality, where actions and behaviors are accorded moral and immoral values, and where we work thorough issues pertaining to respect for others, equality, ending oppression, etc.
So, you think that morality is something we designed during our own antiquity through an awareness that was given to us by a random amoral process? That would make us gods and the greatest of us God, which is highly problematic. This to me is like saying the Earth is the center of the universe. Within the secular explanation of everything, mathmatically morality would not originate on Earth, but somewhere else in the universe. Based upon your reasoning I could simply assert that alien overlords exist and are monitoring every microbe in the gallaxy with a vastly greater intelligence and therefore greater morality. I believe it's much more eloquent of an explanation to say that the Big Bang was caused by intelligence we don't understand and that morality was meant to be (which would then govern the alien overlords). I think it's more reasonable to say that we are being grown by a directed process instead of a random process (from Nothing).
-Sab