by Terry 47 Replies latest watchtower bible
The illustrious TEC says: I nstead of leaving him to die then and there, though (thereby giving none of us who came after, life)... God prepared a new body for him (long garment of skin), that 'holds' that sin and death. So that we do not have to die, in spirit... though these vessels do get sick, and die.
I think somebody has been discipled by A. Guest is what I think!
TEC says:
He does, however, have a choice in what he DOES. In the choices that he makes. Jealous of your brother? He can choose to do harm to his brother, or he can choose to love and serve his brother, thereby mastering the sin in him.
Want something that your brother has? You can choose to take/steal it... or turn away from that desire. (Or you can ask him to give it to you, or sell it to you.)
I'm sure it seems that way to you. But, let's conduct an experiment.
I am fairly familiar with your nature so I'll trim the question toward what I know.
Question: Are there any circumstances under which you could strangle a kitten until its eyes bulge and its cute fuzzy body goes limp?
A.No of course not. And yet, some third party who doesn't know you would say you actually HAVE A CHOICE to do it or not to do. YOU DON'T! Why?
It is entirely contrary to your nature, that's why.
Question: If somebody had been unkind to you over a long period of time could you be encouraged to do something to embarass them publicly in repayment of their unkindness?
A.NO! It would not be a choice for you because it is not in your nature.
Do you see what I mean? Choices look on the surface like choices but what a person THINKS they are choosing is only what it is in their NATURE to choose. (Why call it 'choosing' at all?) Because that is what people see you doing. But, what they are really seeing is you discovering what it is or is not
in your nature to do.
When my first 3 chldren were very young ( the oldest 13 and the youngest 9) their mother (we were divorced) died in a car wreck. I eagerly raised them by myself. I had relatives tell me they were surprised I CHOSE to do that rather than ask their grandparents to do so.
I told them I did NOT have to choose at all. Why? Because it was NOT IN ME to do otherwise! There is no way I could make that kind of Yes/No choice when it came to my children. It is what they call a "no-brainer." For me, that is.
Others may not have the same nature as I do and would easily let the grandparents raise them. That's THEIR nature--not mine.
I hope that clarifies what I am saying the O.P. about human nature. It is different for each person.
I know a fellow who steals tips off the table at a restaurant. That's the way he's made.
I was married to a beautiful woman who made good money who would get arrested for shoplifting cheap underwear or DVD's at a video store.
She couldn't help it.
Human nature is a real hum-dinger.
This is interesting. I am just trying to wrap my mind around this (and not really succesfull) so my thoughts are a little scattered.
For the moment I jsut want to ask somehting about your last post Terry. Maybe later I will come back to somehting else.
I understand, what you mean by it is in someone's nature or not to do something.
An example, that has not really to do with morality: I am doing gymnastics. When I learned a new skill on beam, I did it first on a low beam, and could do it perfectly, but on high beam, I couldn't get myself to do it. It was not in my nature. If I would try I would fall off and get hurt. But my coach was a good coach. She helped me to work on my mind. After a few weeks, i could do it on high beam. Suddenly it was in my nature to do so.
Something that has more to do with morality: For a long time I thought it was really bad to say something good about yourself. Once I went to a therapist (for some other issues). She told me to say: I am a good person. (Or somehting similar.) I couldn't. I couldn't get the words out of my mouth. But at the end of the session, I could say it!
Weren't there experiments, to make people do things, that they wouldn't have thought they could ever do (or were in their nature), good and bad?
So what does this do to the concept of choices? If we can "change our mind", or someone can make us do so, regarding things that we originally felt, are not in our nature, do we in the end have choices?
Just some thoughts. Sorry if this is off topic. This belongs to one of the things that bug me from time to time.
Nika Bee says:
I understand, what you mean by it is in someone's nature or not to do something.
An example, that has not really to do with morality: I am doing gymnastics. When I learned a new skill on beam, I did it first on a low beam, and could do it perfectly, but on high beam, I couldn't get myself to do it. It was not in my nature. If I would try I would fall off and get hurt. But my coach was a good coach. She helped me to work on my mind. After a few weeks, i could do it on high beam. Suddenly it was in my nature to do so.
Something that has more to do with morality: For a long time I thought it was really bad to say something good about yourself. Once I went to a therapist (for some other issues). She told me to say: I am a good person. (Or somehting similar.) I couldn't. I couldn't get the words out of my mouth. But at the end of the session, I could say it!
Weren't there experiments, to make people do things, that they wouldn't have thought they could ever do (or were in their nature), good and bad?
So what does this do to the concept of choices? If we can "change our mind", or someone can make us do so, regarding things that we originally felt, are not in our nature, do we in the end have choices?
Just some thoughts. Sorry if this is off topic. This belongs to one of the things that bug me from time to time.
Thanks for your interested question and examples.
Let me see if I can make distinctions and disambiguate, okay?
Each of us has an architecture of mind and body we are born with. Our genetic make-up. Our DNA.
Depending on what we contain and how efficient or deficient it may be: Skills can be developed and improved.
We have a SKILLSET and a MINDSET......but---we also have an EMOTIONAL temperature: our temperament.
How these combine create the gestalt of our NATURE.
We humans are not only born with functional gifts we are born with functional limits. As we age we discover Who and What we are in terms of those gifts and limits.
Most great musicians are born with PERFECT PITCH, for example.
(When you see a color you can name it. When that musician hears a note he can identify it precisely.)
A child prodigy is born with the tools of greatness PRE-WIRED! Leonard Bernstein could look at a musical score on staff paper and hear it playing in his head, for example.
Mozart, Beethoven, Stevie Wonder, Barbra Streisand all were born with perfect pitch. It was in their toolbox like a free gift the rest of us don't have.
It is their NATURE.
World Chess Champion Jose Raul Capablanca watched his father playing chess with friends every evening and, at age 4, laughed when his father made a blunder. His father embarassedly scolded him. Jose sat down and played and defeated his father on the spot! Capablanca went on to incredible victories. He once went for 9 years without losing a single game. It was his natural skillset combined with study and practice.
None of this addresses MORALITY, though, does it? DOES IT?
Morality=Right and Wrong.
Compare it to music:
A musician with perfect pitch may seem to have a choice of hitting a "wrong" note. But, in fact, it is NOT a choice in the musically correct sense.
The staff paper has B-flat written on it and the perfect pitch musician automatically achieves it! It comes NATURALLY.
When you or I sing and hit a wrong note we aren't actually "choosing" it either, are we? No.
Two sides of the same coin.
Some of us are Tone Deaf and Color Blind and all the instructions in the world won't remedy our NATURAL deficit!
A person born a SOCIOPATH does not and cannot develop a CONSCIENCE. How would you teach them morality?
I recently read a book about a young man,Tony Ciaglia, with a brain injury at a lake. It left him without any restraint on his losing his temper
and thinking violent thoughts. He became fascinated by Serial Killers and started writing to them in prison.
An injury to the brain CHANGED HIS NATURE.
This is what I am talking about.
I hope this helps.
Yes that helps.
So, do we get to the following argumentation: Morality reqires free will.
But we only have REAL free will with regard to things that are not subject to our nature. (If at all, but doesn't this come suspiciously close to determinism?)
If we want to "disprove" the concept of original sin or maybe better, derive a contradictin between the concept of original sin and the concept of morality:
Assume the story is true as told. Then before the sin, man didn't know the difference between good and bad (because they were promised to become like god knowing good and bad). Therefore they lacked the knowledge to make moral choices.
On the other hand, after the sin their nature in the sense above was altered and thus the area of subjects where they could exercise free will had decreased. In particular it was so small now, that it didn't include moral choices.
In both cases we derived a contradiction.
Does this make sense?
dear Tammy...
you said:"Death entered him, and had not been in him before he ate of the tree of the knowledge of good (life), and bad (death). Eating of death, brings death into you.
Instead of leaving him to die then and there, though (thereby giving none of us who came after, life)... God prepared a new body for him (long garment of skin), that 'holds' that sin and death. So that we do not have to die, in spirit... though these vessels do get sick, and die."...
I used to think that regarding the tree of good and evil that good meant life and evil meant death but a word study proved this notion to be false. in genesis 2:9 the word evil #7451 never connotes "death" in any of the places that it is used in the bible. even the evil spiritswithout flesh (which would be similar in nature as to what you are suggesting A&E were before they were covered) are pictured as being evil or wicked, the biblical usage of this word "evil" doesn't imply dead or death. strongs says: this word evil denotes degeneracy from original virtue. (to become disobedient)
as well, the word good in genesis 2:9 connotes in the widest sense of the word...goodness, not life. "the creation narrative best embodies all these various elements of meaning when the Lord declares each aspect of His handiwork to be good." the word naturally expresses the idea of being loved or enjoying the favor of someone. (to remain in grace) none of the words employed to express goodness relating to this one word #2896 meant "life".
so, adam didn't eat of "death", the act of eating from that tree was an act of disobedience toward God's command. And the consequence of his disobenience was that he could no longer eat from the tree of life...this isn't ever called the tree of "good" either
in the OT as well as the NT the idea of putting on new or glorified "flesh" is not expressed the way you have implied. the idea expressed is to put on "the garment of salvation"...ie: the salvation of Christ; or "the garment of righteousness"...ie: the righteousness of Christ. in jude 23 the direct opposite is stated...those false teachers who walk not according to the Lord Jesus Christ have garments defiled by the flesh. what they have on (not their flesh) is defiled in that they don't have on or haven't put on "the garment of salvation" or "the garment of righteousness" offered by Jesus Christ. in revelation 3:17-18 Jesus talks about people who are pitiful, poor, blind and "naked"...though they believe they have need of nothing, (perhaps because they are "good") they have on their own righteousness so Jesus points to the fact that they are "naked" and need to buy from Him white garments because they don't have on His righteousness or His salvation...they are told to repent. interestingly this command is addressed to the church in Laodicea...historically, C.T. Russell billed himself as the "angel/messenger" of the church of Laodicea and few JW's have actually come under the cover of the blood of Jesus Christ.
in revelation 3:4-5 Jesus again speaks about garments and He isn't refering to "flesh" but garments that haven't been defiled by the flesh, they will walk with Him in white. Jesus also talks here about another group overcoming in order to walk in white garments. this is an illusion to the garden of eden where A&E didn't overcome satans temptation to disobey God...these must overcome, not simply generic "sins" of the flesh, but overcome the temptation of satan to disobey God...ie: acts 2:36-41, the divine nature of Jesus Christ is not something that we can obtain by ourselves by being good or nice we can't fashion it no matter how hard we try...we must turn to the Lord Jesus Christ, repent and put on His garments of righteousness and salvation acts 17:29-34
love michelle
p.s. in contrast to the garments we "fashion", white garments symbolize the purity of the blood of Jesus Christ..."wash your robes in the blood of the Lamb"
In the late 1800's (My Grandparents Generation) August Weissman figured out the role of sperm in reproduction. Up until that time the bronze age myth that sperm were very tiny humans was the dominant thinking. The Bible writers believed that myth. The whole concept of sin and salvation has to do with the idea that Adam had a whole world of little people inside him and that Jesus dare not have children because the whole world of little people in Jesus' loins had to die with him to properly satisfy God's eye-for-an-eye justice.
How can an enlightened 21st century intelligent person give this concept serious consideration.
So where does "sin" come from? I believe in intrinsic sin NOT inherited sin. Sin is just another name for putting your own advantages over others to the detriment of everyone. The appearance of life required membranes to form a wall between the organism and its environment. Look up the etymology of the word "self". It means one's own person. Ownership emerges from fences. Cell membranes are special fences. Our "ego's" are a mental boundary. Organisms have to compete for material to maintain metabolism. The rest is history. Eat or die.
If there are no biological forces that predispose certain people to criminality how do you explain the overwhelming size of male prison populations vs. female prisoners. Read some of Steven Pinker's books.
Sexual crimes are particularly interesting. Some men need to surrender their testicles for the privilege of living in society. It was interesting listening to "progressive/liberal" talk radio last week. So many liberal callers felt that surely the Cleveland case of abduction would merit the death penalty. What's wrong with giving the person the option of imprisonment or castration. Not castration as punishment but castration as a biological corrective. How is castration any worse than Angelina getting a double masectomy to avoid the 85% chance that she will get breast cancer and die before 60 like her mother?
Society has found it convenient to lock men up in "marriage" to keep them from violent competition for females.
Adam, Eve, Sin, and mystical atonement with blood sacrifices whether animal or human are a feeble attempt to understand the problems of the great and diverse biological excursion we call - LIFE.
Sorry for the hodge-podge of subjects and ideas but that's what you have anyway.
All bible stories, histories and recitations were oral.
The actual MEANING as used by the very person who originally uttered them isn't (and cannot be) known.
Anyone (years later) writing THEIR OWN version of an oral story would likely put it in different words.
And so on.
Doing word studies to find out exactly what meaning is intended by a bible writer ASSUMES words now translated from so-called "original" words written is some kind of pristine, clinical, exactly preserved SCIENTIFIC and forensic deconstruction.
Well, hello Bubble meet Mister Sharp Pin! POP!
