by Terry 21 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
and the people wonder - why don't you just not kill us in the first place?)
As far as I can remember, we are here to prove that god is the best and
deserves to rule the whole universe, so the more we suffer and still don't curse him,
the happier it makes him
And btw I wonder what the angels think about all the blood that has been spilled.
whiled god is being appeased throughout the milleniums!
Jehovah's selfish act of condemning us all reminds me of the Rothschilds. Impose a debt that cannot be paid off, then a means of "forgiving" that debt. In the process of "forgiving" the debt, you enslave the victim. Jehovah intended us to be slaves. When Savior Satan thwarted that plan, Jehovah resorted to this turning the event into a debt to himself--a debt that could only be "forgiven" at the expense of enslaving us all. Which is precisely what Jehovah wanted in the first place.
Just look at what the Rothschilds are doing to the nations. They seize control of all the banks, finance both sides of wars, put the nations into debt that cannot be paid off because the Rothschilds control the currencies, then offer to "forgive" that debt in exchange for enslaving everyone and seizing control of all assets. Do people find the Rothschilds to be a "loving God" when they find out about that? Or do they riot, rebel by buying silver and gold, and try to end the central banking system? Do people find joy in paying income taxes?
Probably not. Yet, they are doing no better when they go to church or the Kingdumb Hell, waste their time trying to live up to a bunch of rules that go against nature, and pay tithes to their churches. Yet, both have the same objective--enslaving the whole human race.
wow tec i have never were it put like that - that the garments god gave adam and eve were not animal skins. it is an interesting perspective and I'd like to know a little more of your reasoning.
from my own standpoint the fact that god gave adam and eve garments made of animal skins sugggests that humans and God joined forces to confront and negotiate with something unspeakable in his evolution that was part of his survival and also part of his horrofying self conscious guilt according to psycho analysis but according to a more affirmative frame this horrofying experience could be seen as an enactment of power and will to survive but even this would need to be made sense of on a communal level.
if any of this was the case then we are looking at god committing an act to enable justice for man and for his environment rather than injustice.
But Terry, going back to your opening post,I agree with you provided that you are refuting how Jehovahs witnesses define the fall of man and his salvation?
Thank you for a valid observation Terry, regarding religion and the Watchtower's focus, perspective and portrayal.
What are your thoughts on this alternative perspective?:
In scripture there are "children of God" and "children of the devil".
A legal custody battle broke out in heaven between our heavenly father, and our evil step-father who legally gained custody, albeit by deceit and non-disclosure. Adam and Eve were not evil rebels, but made a serious mistake in opting to subject themselves to the authority and custody of our evil step-father. This was not without consequences or progressive and ultimate remedy and creation of an eternal watertight legal precedent.
We too are afforded the legal choice of parent, family and destiny by which tree we eat from.
The tree of knowledge of good and bad - namely religion.
The tree of life - namely the "unabridged good news".
(For any that this perspective resonates with, the 1997 book "Two Trees" by Robert Ingleson, may be of interest)
thanks fernando, while you were posting I was updating my post to reflect that Terry maybe describing and refuting the JW perspective and on this I agree withh him.
Tec, however, raised an interesting point that I wanted to pursue, and although this may have gone off point a little, my intention was to bring the argument round to show how wahtever conclusion we reached could impact Terry's argument
coming back to your other point above, Fernanado - the tree of like as the unabridged good news -
interesting - nice one
TEC offered:
An invulnerable and eternal God is said to have been "injured" by the actions of two humans.
Who said this?
TEC, I was referring to Lese Majeste .
The concept of lese majeste as a legal term arose during the Roman Empire, when it was first codified as an action with distinct legal repercussions. Many monarchies adopted the concept, subjecting citizens to penalties if they insulted the monarch in some way. Lese majeste can range from being disrespectful to the monarch in his or her presence to making defamatory statements in public. It could loosely be defined as a lack of proper respect for the monarch.
Because God gave Adam and Eve flesh (garments of skin) that trapped death and sin in IT, rather than in the spirit. For in the garden of eden (a spiritual place) Adam and Eve were spiritual beings as well. They could move in and out - spirit and flesh - until God made them 'garments of skin' (which was NOT animal skin for clothing) that they were trapped within.
TEC, this is more Plato and Greek thought than Hebrew mythos. It also has a sci-fi aspect that Tom Cruise might well appreciate:)
The Earth is physical.
A garden is physical.
Plants and fruit are physical.
Eating is physical.
The clay from which Adam was made is physical.
The rib Eve was made from is physical.
How you can make any of this "spiritual" is sort of imposed heavy-lifting unnecessary to the plot:)
And besides....what exactly IS the definition of "spiritual"? It pretty much is a rubber band of "meaning" to be stretched..s-t-r-e-t-c-h-e-d..however far you like.
Being naked and being covered by animal skins has an obvious meaning. Occam's Razor would intrude upon you fanciful explanation of "trapped".
Sin is behavior. You don't trap behavior. You don't trap death.
A "spirit" can behave badly as well, right? What traps the sin of a spirit being? Is an animal skin necessary?
As far as the GENE POOL is concerned I'd say this. We are talking about behavior caused by choices. Our choices are always made because of our values and education and our nature. Human nature is what it is because it was created LESS THAN God deliberately.
The FLAW in human creation was in its deliberate INFERIORITY to God's perfection.
The stated motive of humans in Eden was an ASPIRATION to be as God was because God had not made them LIKE Himself.
Obviously they would not make a God-like choice!
Just as our own inexperienced children will not and can not simply follow orders to "do this" and "don't do that" because they are not mature and wise and rational---so too, Adam and Eve were inferior to the Superior God.
If God wanted PERFECT OBEDIENCE all Jehovah had to do was create EVERY creation just like He did when he made His own SON!
Ask yourself "why?" only Jesus is/was able to exactly do the bidding of Jehovah? It is simply because Jesus was equal to Jehovah in everything.
The only inferiority of Jesus to Jehovah was priority of existence.
wow tec i have never were it put like that - that the garments god gave adam and eve were not animal skins. it is an interesting perspective and I'd like to know a little more of your reasoning.
I can try. I think there is more on a thread on the xjwsforchrist forum as well. I'll respond to Terry, and perhaps in that, more of this reasoning will be shown. If not, then I'll expand more with you. Just let me know what exactly you would like expanded :)
TEC, I was referring to Lese Majeste.
The concept of lese majeste as a legal term arose during the Roman Empire, when it was first codified as an action with distinct legal repercussions. Many monarchies adopted the concept, subjecting citizens to penalties if they insulted the monarch in some way. Lese
majeste can range from being disrespectful to the monarch in his or her presence to making defamatory statements in public. It could loosely be defined as a lack of proper respect for the monarch.
Okay.
But this is not in the account. This is an assumption. If this assumption is wrong, and it is the basis for your reasoning, then that reasoning is based on a false assumption.
TEC, this is more Plato and Greek thought than Hebrew mythos. It also has a sci-fi aspect that Tom Cruise might well appreciate:)
Perhaps. But Christ was concerned with the spiritual. So it would make sense that someone who follows Him looks at things with that in mind?
The Earth is physical.
It is.
A garden is physical.
Plants and fruit are physical.
Eating is physical.
The clay from which Adam was made is physical.
The rib Eve was made from is physical.
How you can make any of this "spiritual" is sort of imposed heavy-lifting unnecessary to the plot:)
All of these things are phsyical. But they are also used as symbolism, to relate to the spiritual. Because people did not understand the spiritual. Christ said this also. People need to see to get the gist of something.
Symbolism is not beyond our grasp though. Tree of life... =/symbolizes/represents... life. Tree of knowledge of good and evil = knowledge of good and evil. Garden of Eden = spiritual 'place'. Eating fruit = taking in whatever that fruit is from. If knowledge of good and evil, then knowledge of good and evil. If life, then life.
And besides....what exactly IS the definition of "spiritual"? It pretty much is a rubber band of "meaning" to be stretched..s-t-r-e-t-c-h-e-d..however far you like.
The spirit is who we are... not trapped within the flesh. Not limited in that way. God is Spirit. Christ is Spirit... though He walked in the flesh for a time. Angels are spirit. Heaven is a spiritual 'place'. Like another realm. I cannot give you a proper definition because we do not have the words to describe it, yet. Same as dna or germ could not have described properly before these were discovered by a physical means, and then named.
But the spirit is at the heart of the teachings of Christ.
Being naked and being covered by animal skins has an obvious meaning. Occam's Razor would intrude upon you fanciful explanation of "trapped".
Sure, but how is being naked wrong? How is covering a naked body with animal skin doing something?
Occam's Razor can't apply if the premise does not make any sense to begin with, can it?
They could not hide their sin (though they tried by hiding from God)... hence they were naked. Being without clothes was not their sin. Having eaten when told not to eat... that was their sin.
Sin is behavior. You don't trap behavior. You don't trap death.
No, you don't trap behavior, but God CAN thwart and defeat death.
In eating from the tree of knowledge of good and bad (death is part of bad); they took bad (death) into themselves. They should have died; blinked out forever. But God showed them mercy, and us, and protected them by giving them vessels that take that death and sin into it.
They also hid from God, because of the sin that was exposed in them. Flesh could have served as a covering for them (perhaps only in their minds), so that they might feel that they could still approach God. Of course God sees what is within, as He did in the temple of Ezekiel's vision. But this understanding - that this was animal skins that God gave them as a covering for their sin, rather than the vessels that we have/our flesh - might explain why so many thought God wanted animal sacrifice to appease him becasue of the sins of the people.
In reality though... our covering is Christ. He covers us and our sins so that we may approach His Father.
A "spirit" can behave badly as well, right? What traps the sin of a spirit being? Is an animal skin necessary?
There are sins of the spirit, and sins of the flesh. Sins of the spirit are 'worse', because they are within; they go deeper. I don't really know very much on this yet, though, to comment overmuch. But one can be forgiven for these as well. Christ can cover these as well. It might be harder to acknowledge these within us though, because we would not want to face these truths about ourselves, and so harder to even ask forgiveness for something that we do not acknowledge. Like convincing oneself that something you did was good, when it was not.
As far as the GENE POOL is concerned I'd say this. We are talking about behavior caused by choices. Our choices are always made because of our values and education and our nature. Human nature is what it is because it was created LESS THAN God deliberately.
Behavior is caused by choices, yes. But we are all trapped within flesh, because we came from those who were also trapped within vessels of flesh. That part is genetics. Genetics to protect us all against the behavior that we choose, and the natural consequences thereof.
The FLAW in human creation was in its deliberate INFERIORITY to God's perfection.
Love, I think, is God's perfection. Perhaps lack of that is a flaw in us. But it is an assumption that we blame God for that. Perhaps God simply gave us the freedom to choose to be whatever we wanted to be. We are certainly capable of love. But we often choose not to show it. That choice has consequences that people across the world feel.
The stated motive of humans in Eden was an ASPIRATION to be as God was because God had not made them LIKE Himself.
I would counter that God always intended it to be thus. But Adam and Eve (with the prodding of the serpent); jumped the gun before they were ready. Before they had learned enough... perhaps enough of love. We jump the gun a lot too, so we truly are like our 'parents'.
Obviously they would not make a God-like choice!
They could have listened though. They had no reason to believe that God would lie to them. They wanted more, and they wanted it now. Sounds like most of us ;)
Just as our own inexperienced children will not and can not simply follow orders to "do this" and "don't do that" because they are not mature and wise and rational---so too, Adam and Eve were inferior to the Superior God.
Yes. But if those children do not learn the easy way (by listening) and instead choose to do everything the hard way... then what can you do but protect them on their path as best as you can, whilst letting them learn in the manner they chose and insist upon?
If God wanted PERFECT OBEDIENCE all Jehovah had to do was create EVERY creation just like He did when he made His own SON!
HIS SON chooses to follow and to listen. He does not have to. We all make our choices.
Ask yourself "why?" only Jesus is/was able to exactly do the bidding of Jehovah? It is simply because Jesus was equal to Jehovah in everything.
AFTER he made his choice, He was given all authority, etc. He never claimed to be equal. Just the opposite, in fact. "The Father is greater than I."
He had the same free will as anyone else. What he chose to do with it, however, is different than what Adam chose to do with his.
Peace,
tammy
Okay.
But this is not in the account. This is an assumption. If this assumption is wrong, and it is the basis for your reasoning, then that reasoning is based on a false assumption.
Aww, my little girl is all grown up! Explicitly it is not in the account. Implicitly, however, we must admit it is all over the account.
TEC, this is more Plato and Greek thought than Hebrew mythos. It also has a sci-fi aspect that Tom Cruise might well appreciate:)
Perhaps. But Christ was concerned with the spiritual. So it would make sense that someone who follows Him looks at things with that in mind?
Jumping a bit ahead, aren't we? Christ isn't explicitly in the account either--is he? No-o-oo-
How you can make any of this "spiritual" is sort of imposed heavy-lifting unnecessary to the plot:)
All of these things are phsyical. But they are also used as symbolism, to relate to the spiritual. Because people did not understand the spiritual. Christ said this also. People need to see to get the gist of something.
Symbolism is not beyond our grasp though. Tree of life... =/symbolizes/represents... life. Tree of knowledge of good and evil = knowledge of good and evil. Garden of Eden = spiritual 'place'. Eating fruit = taking in whatever that fruit is from. If knowledge of good and evil, then knowledge of good and evil. If life, then life.
Good heavens, M'lady! Eisogesis running riot in your streets! Why force all that upon the text and insist we all buy your particular brand? Eh?
Think how many countless interpretations have been laid over the top of the text with equal confidence through the millennia.
And besides....what exactly IS the definition of "spiritual"? It pretty much is a rubber band of "meaning" to be stretched..s-t-r-e-t-c-h-e-d..however far you like.
I cannot give you a proper definition because we do not have the words to describe it, yet. Same as dna or germ could not have described properly before these were discovered by a physical means, and then named.
Says who? How does any of this differ from other fictional constructs? The Land of Oz, Bigfoot, Santa Bunny, Easter Claus, Flash Gordon, X-ray vision...
It's all equally unprovable and wildly popular. But, why let factuality enter into it? :)
Being naked and being covered by animal skins has an obvious meaning. Occam's Razor would intrude upon you fanciful explanation of "trapped".
Sure, but how is being naked wrong? How is covering a naked body with animal skin doing something?
Occam's Razor can't apply if the premise does not make any sense to begin with, can it?
They could not hide their sin (though they tried by hiding from God)... hence they were naked. Being without clothes was not their sin. Having eaten when told not to eat... that was their sin.
Oh my! We are taking this literally and seriously at the same time? These stories were written later..later..much later and the notions of shameful nakedness superimposed over the telling of it. Moses? My eye! None of it quite carries the day in believable gravitas. Buck up and fly straight, ma'am.
But this understanding - that this was animal skins that God gave them as a covering for their sin, rather than the vessels that we have/our flesh - might explain why so many thought God wanted animal sacrifice to appease him becasue of the sins of the people
Might? Umm, yeah....but, also....might NOT! Might be just a story, too.
A "spirit" can behave badly as well, right? What traps the sin of a spirit being? Is an animal skin necessary?
There are sins of the spirit, and sins of the flesh. Sins of the spirit are 'worse', because they are within; they go deeper. I don't really know very much on this yet, though, to comment overmuch.
Yes, well...sin is sin because "missing the mark" is failure. The point I have tried to (and continue to try to) make is just this: A short person cannot "fail" to be tall. They are what they ARE. Humans are what they are because it is their nature. A thing is what it is. Holding mankind accountable for what is essentially their own nature is poor sportsmanship on Jehovah's part. So there.
Perhaps God simply gave us the freedom to choose to be whatever we wanted to be. We are certainly capable of love. But we often choose not to show it. That choice has consequences that people across the world feel.
Perhaps pigs could fly. But, then again--no. Freedom can only be freedom with plausible reality attached. I am certainly not free to be a math genius or a WWF wrestler or freckled fat lady in the circus. Reality intrudes. Always.
The stated motive of humans in Eden was an ASPIRATION to be as God was because God had not made them LIKE Himself.
I would counter that God always intended it to be thus. But Adam and Eve (with the prodding of the serpent); jumped the gun before they were ready. Before they had learned enough... perhaps enough of love.
Balderdash! You may as well beat Mozart with stick for being able to compose and play extraordinary music BEFORE going to music school! The urge and the drive to BE LIKE GOD is put into those characters. Punishing them for being a prodigy in that regard is just bad writing! And...LOVE? Love is what we value above all else. Nothing more and nothing less.
Obviously they would not make a God-like choice!
They could have listened though. They had no reason to believe that God would lie to them. They wanted more, and they wanted it now. Sounds like most of us ;)
(Long and dramatic sigh......) Adam and Eve had no childhood, no friends, no brothers and sisters, no schooling, no textbooks or videos on etiquette and NO EXPERIENCE MAKING DECISIONS! Why not think about that before judging them too harshly?
Ask yourself "why?" only Jesus is/was able to exactly do the bidding of Jehovah? It is simply because Jesus was equal to Jehovah in everything.
AFTER he made his choice, He was given all authority, etc. He never claimed to be equal. Just the opposite, in fact. "The Father is greater than I."
He had the same free will as anyone else. What he chose to do with it, however, is different than what Adam chose to do with his.
Jesus as "free as anyone else"? Hardly. Can you change water into wine and raise the dead? Jesus is a superhero with unlimited power. If you are the richest person in town you need not think about stealing. If you born in heaven what "else" would you covet or aspire to? Really now, TEC!
Aww, my little girl is all grown up! Explicitly it is not in the account. Implicitly, however, we must admit it is all over the account.
Well, Shamus growed up last night too, so it must be in the air ;)
Now what you think is implicit, is only so IF your premise and understanding of this story is correct. To which I would disagree, for the reasons I stated.
Jumping a bit ahead, aren't we? Christ isn't explicitly in the account either--is he? No-o-oo-
Actually He is the life (so the tree of life), so He is in the account... he is also prophecized about in the account.
However, most people did not know Him until after He came, so I understand what you mean.
But He is the truth. So understanding truth comes through Him. (The Spirit opened the eyes of His disciples to the scriptures, and to truth.)
So I look at everything through Christ and His teachings.
The garden of Eden is a spiritual place/realm/plane in some Jewish teachings as well.
Good heavens, M'lady! Eisogesis running riot in your streets! Why force all that upon the text and insist we all buy your particular brand? Eh?
I'm not insisiting you buy my brand, M'lord ;). I am simply sharing my understanding, as you are sharing yours. People can 'buy' whatever brand they like, or buy another, or pass altogether.
Think how many countless interpretations have been laid over the top of the text with equal confidence through the millennia.
Including yours.
Says who? How does any of this differ from other fictional constructs? The Land of Oz, Bigfoot, Santa Bunny, Easter Claus, Flash Gordon, X-ray vision...
Because it isn't a fictional construct.
Oh my! We are taking this literally and seriously at the same time? These stories were written later..later..much later and the notions of shameful nakedness superimposed over the telling of it. Moses? My eye! None of it quite carries the day in believable gravitas. Buck up and fly straight, ma'am.
Yes, but where did that idea even come from? That naked flesh is a sin? I would suggest that this is a misunderstanding; taking something literally over symbolically. Most every legend, fear, tradition, doctrine... has a root in something.
Might? Umm, yeah....but, also....might NOT! Might be just a story, too.
Carries kinda the same authority as 'implicitely' ;)
Yes, well...sin is sin because "missing the mark" is failure. The point I have tried to (and continue to try to) make is just this: A short person cannot "fail" to be tall. They are what they ARE. Humans are what they are because it is their nature. A thing is what it is. Holding mankind accountable for what is essentially their own nature is poor sportsmanship on Jehovah's part. So there.
And yet, some have a nature that leans more toward kindness and love; and others have a nature that lean more toward greed and lust for power; lacking love. Humans do act upon their nature (which is why Christ came to teach about cleaning the 'inside', because we act upon what is within us... our individual natures), but they do not all have the same sort of nature; AND, they can change their nature. By learning.
So there :P
Perhaps pigs could fly. But, then again--no. Freedom can only be freedom with plausible reality attached. I am certainly not free to be a math genius or a WWF wrestler or freckled fat lady in the circus. Reality intrudes. Always.
Freedom within our physical capabilities, yes. We are free to love and to show love; just as we are free to throw one another under the bus in order to (try and) save our own hides. Which is what Adam did in blaming both the woman for giving him the fruit, and God for placing the woman there with him.
We are also free to show mercy, or we are free to withhold it.
We are free to seek retribution, or we are free to 'turn the other cheek' and love our enemies.
Balderdash! You may as well beat Mozart with stick for being able to compose and play extraordinary music BEFORE going to music school! The urge and the drive to BE LIKE GOD is put into those characters. Punishing them for being a prodigy in that regard is just bad writing! And...LOVE? Love is what we value above all else. Nothing more and nothing less.
I never said there was something wrong with them aspiring to be like God. How they went about achieving their aspirations is what was wrong.
They figured they could take a shortcut, and do it on their own, and just bypass God altogether. That is what the serpent told them, and they believed the serpent... because they wanted to. But when you take a short-cut, you miss out on some very important lessons. Such as the love Adam could have shown Eve by taking the blame onto himself, repenting and asking forgiveness and mercy.
This is what Christ did for us... and more so... because he asked forgiveness for us for all the things we had done to wrong Him. Christ did for us what Adam (and also what we) fail to do for ourselves and others. (I know this bothers your sense of justice, but justice is nothing without mercy)
(Long and dramatic sigh......) Adam and Eve had no childhood, no friends, no brothers and sisters, no schooling, no textbooks or videos on etiquette and NO EXPERIENCE MAKING DECISIONS! Why not think about that before judging them too harshly?
They had schooling and a teacher (God). As well as who knows how many other 'trees' and what they represented.
I am not attempting to judge them. They WERE told what would happen. They did not listen. What they were told would happen DID happen. And while Eve was deceived, Adam was not. He knew he was doing wrong, and he did it because he wanted what the serpent had promised.
Jesus as "free as anyone else"? Hardly. Can you change water into wine and raise the dead? Jesus is a superhero with unlimited power. If you are the richest person in town you need not think about stealing. If you born in heaven what "else" would you covet or aspire to? Really now, TEC!
Free to choose, same as anyone else. Not equal to God. (that is what you said, that he was equal and that enabled him to be able to do exactly as God wanted, but he makes it clear that he was not)
And rich people steal all the time. Not because they have to, but because they want to.
Adam and Eve were in the garden, in paradise... but it was not enough for them.
And those who belonged to Christ could have done all the same things (and did many of them) if they had the faith to do so. He told them this as well.
Peace,
tammy
Genesis' story of Adam and Eve:
I can't really invest that simple tale with so many sophisticated layers of spiritual symbolism....for a good reason:
THERE IS NO POINT. Hey, God--either tell us or don't.
Hiding meaning is witholding while pretending to give. It is passive-agressive behavior. It is a pathology which, from God, is unacceptable.
When I read scripture I think of hundreds (if not thousands) of storytellers handing down something they themselves heard as a child.
Genesis is not a telling. It is a retelling. A re-retelling. A re-re-retelling (repeat and rinse.)
The details grow or shrink.
The words we use to communicate with each other can reveal or hide our meaning if we are truly attempting communication.
Honesty dictates which.
The words used in Genesis are not honest words so much as they are like bungy cords, clay, rubber: malleable; stretched-to-fit.
Simple words like DAY and DIE either mean what they usually mean or they don't.
"In the DAY you eat of the fruit you shall surely DIE" seems pretty obvious in meaning--and yet--that "DAY" ends up being 930 years!
Moreover, "DIE" is converted into "spiritual death".
Well, this isn't information so much as it is a choose-your-own-adventure book of Mad Libs!
We cannot understand anything but our own imagination by reading Genesis. It is paleography. It is cave writing. It is a footprint in history.
It "means" not much of anything specific, profound or instructive.
