Now for myself, I like what Alan has to say...I still consider myself a Christian and a Bible researcher, becasue I think there is more to the story than what Alan says and more to the story than what traditional Chrisianity has told us.
http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/forum/thread.asp?id=25047&site=3#318973
>The JW doctrine of universal sovereignty, nicely explained by You Know, is completely nonsensical. The question of God's power is moot according to this doctrine because even Satan acknowledges that God is supremely powerful. So the doctrine is that Satan questioned God's right to rule, as well as whether God's creatures were all motivated by self-interest. A careful look at these notions shows that they're nonsensical too.
In the final analysis the right to rule over anything is determined by power. The most powerful rules if he wants to. That's unaguable, because whoever ends up ruling over others after a battle over who should rule is by definition the most powerful. Since God is all-powerful by virtue of his being the Creator, and he has demonstrated his desire to continue ruling over all creation, he has the right to rule by virtue of his power. That's because all "rights" are granted by some authority.
"But wait!" the typical JW will say. "We're not talking about God's right to rule by virtue of his power, but by virtue of his moral superiority and so forth." Well, pretty much the same argument holds here. Who determines what is moral and right? Whoever is the most powerful in the universe. Otherwise we would have to say that a standard of morals exists apart from God, and that God conforms to this standard. But a JW will not admit of this, because he will say that God sets the standard. So a JW will have to admit that he believes God is moral because and only because he is God. Thus the claim that God has a right to rule by virtue of his moral superiority is a meaningless tautology.
The question of whether all creatures are motivated mainly by self-interest is ridiculous. In the realm of mankind we see a complete spectrum of motivations, from pure self-interest to massive selflessness, and this state has existed from mankind's beginnings. So that question has long been answered. The question can also be answered by considering that God is the all-knowing designer of mankind and that he has caused all their parts to be "down in writing" (from Psalms). All that a competent examiner has to do to see whether God designed mankind to have a range of motivations is to look over the "design specification document". God himself can certainly make the specs available. If a questioner is incompetent to examine the specs, then God wins. If a questioner questions the specs, God can enlighten him. To claim that only a field test could answer the question of motivation, as You Know and his beloved Society do, is to claim that God is incompetent.
These arguments apply equally well to the claims of certain other Christians that God needed to demonstrate anything in order to prove to Satan or anyone else the nature of mankind.
Finally there is a moral question: If God did indeed do as the Watchtower Society claims, then God is a monster unfit to rule. An illustration proves this easily. Suppose a human father is challenged by an adversary that his young children only appear to love him, and obey him only because they're afraid of him, and that given the opportunity they would dump him toute suite. The father challenges this claim and the adversary says, "Let me do anything I please to your children and we'll see who is right." The father says, "Ok" and the adversary proceeds to threaten and torture and deceive the children, who of course are not let in on the challenge. He kills some of the children in the process. The children see the father looking placidly on, watching their torture, and they conclude that the father doesn't love them. Who won the challenge? The father or the adversary? Did the father demonstrate love for his children? Of course not. He demonstrated the opposite, and so the adversary won.
Of course, a JW will object to the above illustration, but all of their objections will evaporate, as can be shown by a demonstration: Anyone who thinks the above illustration is poor is welcome to challenge it and demonstrate why the father proves himself loving by allowing his children to be tortured and killed by a criminal.
AlanF<
BEFORE YOU TRY AND REMOVE THE STICK FROM MY ARSE, REMOVE THE TELEPHONE POLE FROM YOUR OWN ARSE.
