by Coded Logic 26 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
An all powerful God should never have to use lethal force. If God was truly worried about man "ruining the earth" he could have dried up every womans womb except for Noahs family. Wiping out the entire biosphere shows a complete lack of omnipotence and omnibenevolence.
God also let Jeptha sacrafice his own daughter so he could win in battle.
The difference between moral human beings and the god of the Bible is that if you, as a loving, responsible, moral human being were to walk into a room and find a man molesting a child, you would (I hope) intervene and do everything in your power to either prevent or stop the molestation. God, on the other hand, says, "hey, you go ahead and rape that child, and when you are finished, I am going to punish you . . . ".
You, as a compassionate, empathetic, just, and moral human know with every fiber of your being that owning another human being as property, i.e., a slave, is wrong under any circumstance. The god of the Bible not only sanctioned slavery, but also provided laws and guidelines for the buying, the owning, the treatment of, and selling of other human beings as property, the most common of which were historically women. It was neither God, nor His son, nor any apostle, nor any Christian who ever corrected or retracted this grave immoral concept written down in Holy Scripture, but it was humanists, secularists, and atheists who stepped up to finally assert the gross immorality of slavery and proceeded to abolish it. In spite of how impossible it is for God to lie, no matter how perfect and righteous He is, and no matter how every utterance that comes forth from Jehovah's mouth will not return without results, there is not one country or nation left in this world who thinks He got it right, and has therefore corrected his fuckup.
The god of the Bible is psychopath, a liar, a jealous petty hypocritical tantrum throwing dick who couldn't get over the fact that he fucked up when designed the earth and mankind, set them up to fail from the beginning, and all he has done since the garden of Eden is make matters worse. He is a racist, genocidal, thieving, child sacrificing sadist who is too weak and too feckless to so much as even prove his existence.
What else did Assholeva get wrong?
The God of the Old Testament was a genocidal maniac who obviously delighted in not only slaughtering humans on a large scale , but also animals as blood sacrifices to him on a large scale .
How can any sane person worship such a bloodthirsty God is beyond me.
smiddy
Cold Steel said:
"[God] was loving, compassionate, merciful, but He also knew the evil in the hearts of men and their secret deeds...
The Lord then shows him the coming flood and the people who would die. At first, Enoch entreats God to spare humanity, but then the Lord shows him the wickedness of the people and their deeds...
The day will come when every knee will bend and every tongue will confess that Jesus is the Christ. Why? Because, like Enoch, you will have the same insight that the Lord had and realize that He did what had to be done in the context it was done."
(end quote)
....................
COLD STEEL, what evil deeds did the animals commit (who were killed in Noah's day)? What secret sins had those creatures carried out that would impel a loving God to drown them all, in the supposedly justified mass murder known as 'the Flood'?
Even looking at the situation in the context of every person on earth being violent and perverted except Noah and his family...
God DID NOT merely 'do what had to be done'.
You would have to admit that God had the power to (I'm borrow wording used in your post) 'surgically remove' all of those wicked people from the earth.
He could have done that, couldn't He?
No collateral damage is necessary if you have the power to selectively kill whoever you choose whilst sparing the innocent and 'godly' people, which your God clearly does.
God chose to mercilessly drown all of those innocent, and sinless, living beings.
Please explain why God 'did what had to be done' in the case of those animals...
----
Genesis 7:21
" And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man:
22 All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died.
23 And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark."
http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/watchtower/bible/222352/23/Theists-why-does-God-allow-suffering
Defender: As stated above, one cannot judge God without knowing what He knows. Regarding the animals and the flood, you assume, without knowing, that God destroyed innocent animals. I'm an ardent lover of animals, and I believe God is as well. Like us, I believe animals have spirits and are co-beneficiaries with us in the Atonement. As such, after death, I believe animals are happy and will partake, with us, in the resurrection. Thus God is just, for what we go through in life cannot readily be understood. The apostle Peter said that when Jesus was dead in the flesh, he was made alive in the spirit, by which he went and "preached to the spirits in prison, which sometimes were disobedient in the days of Noah." Thus the saying in the creeds of men, "He descended into hell." But to the malefactor, he said, "Today shalt thou be with me in Paradise."
Many think Paradise is Heaven, but that's not the case, for man cannot be saved in ignorance. Even the malefactor. It was Origen who sought to remember the teachings of the early church. "Paradise, I think, is a place of learning or school of the spirits," he said, "in which everything they learned on Earth would be made clear to them." This has been bourne out by many people who have had near-death experiences. They undergo what's come to be called "life reviews," where they learn from their experiences during life; and sometimes the reviews are not pleasant. People talk about the beautiful colors and the sights and sounds -- and many have mentioned animals and their ability to communicate. Perhaps God has a working knowledge of this place, and perhaps He also knows His animals are at peace and are happy; and that those who never had a chance to hear the gospel here can perhaps have it preached to them after they pass on. Then, as Peter said, they can "be judged according to men in the flesh, but live, according to God, in the spirit."
Bottom line is, again, we cannot judge God. He knows the most complex secrets of the Universe, and yet He accounts us as His children, not merely His creations. I also suspect He highly regards His animals and delights in their existence and immortality. In the flesh they serve us as food, beasts of burden and, yes, as sacrifices pointing the way to the greatest of all sacrifices. But, ultimately, they will all have a place in the resurrection and be happy throughout the eternities.
Why God does what He does is a mystery. If He could "speak the world into existence out of nothing," as some say, why did it take six "days" (or eras)? Who knows? Until we know these things, can we second guess Him? If the day comes when "every knee shall bend and every tongue confess Christ," I think it safe to say well know a lot more then.
As such, after death, I believe animals are happy and will partake, with us, in the resurrection.
There's gonna one godawful butt-load of cockroaches crawlin' around wherever this resurrection takes place.....
For me It was the realization that he killed everyone on the planet at the flood of Noah,
to only have the world and humanity return to its pre-flood existence.
He forgot about that inherent sin from Adam stuff I guess.
.
"6. God will reward those animals who suffer by resurrecting them to eternal bliss.
This view has been put forward by Irenaeus, Athanasius, C.S. Lewis, Jurgen Moltmann and Keith Ward among others.
While this view seems somewhat absurd to many people, it doesn't answer the problem anyway.
Just because someone is rewarded in the future for the suffering he endures in the present does not excuse the one who is responsible for the suffering.
The suffering is still a wrong no matter how much reward is later given."
http://formerfundy.blogspot.in/2010/05/christian-delusion-chapter-nine.html
..........
For anyone wanting to follow a logical and informative discussion on why a loving God lets animals suffer, this thread is a good read. It was what finally turned me towards atheism..
http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/watchtower/bible/222352/1/Theists-why-does-God-allow-suffering
It sounds callous to say now, but our sufferings are but a moment. The animals that died in the flood did not suffer horrible deaths, and there are many others that have suffered much more than the ones in the flood. And people. My point is that we don't know enough to judge God, and we'll later think it was the height of foolishness to try. In the extra-biblical Book of Jasher, it was the animals who formed a protective ring around the ark once it was loaded. The people wanted to break into the ark, but the lions and other predators prevented them. Yet they, themselves, would later die in the flood. I'd always wondered how Noah kept the people away once the ship was complete and loaded. It's a plausible account, I think.
The suffering is still a wrong no matter how much reward is later given.
The question, though, is who gets to decide what is right and what is wrong if there is no God? There is neither, for if there is no punishment there can be no law. Christians and Jews, I suppose, mourn for all that suffer, both men and beasts. There are children who, at around age 10, for no other reason that it pleases them, decides to torture small animals. These psychopaths can later transfer their demented need to cause suffering to other people and they feel nothing. We understand that God can weep, and Jesus wept frequently. Thus, it would be wrong to say that either was a psychopath (and heaven help us if they are!).
I've never believed in the Evangelical bent that we're all depraved sinners who deserve Hell, but that accepting Jesus will deliver us. I recently heard one of these people who gave a parable about two people, neighbors. One is a horrible person who beats his wife and children and frequently comes home drunk. The other is a good, decent, honorable person who isn't saved and isn't much interested in religion, nor Jesus. One day an asteroid hits and kills them both, but, said the Evangelical, the horrible person prayed to God that morning, acknowledged that he was a vile sinner and begged Jesus to save him.
"Guess which one goes to heaven?" he said, smugly. In his view, the good guy could have been a great guy, a wonderful father and husband, a loyal friend and a caring person who gave several hours a week at a soup kitchen -- but he fell short of the glory of God and is damned. As in forever and ever, worlds without end. An eternity in Hell, where his flesh is seared day in and day out, ever burning but never consumed. So the former Evangelical, to me, makes a fair amount of sense when he denounces his religion. To me, only a fool would believe that doctrine. It's kind of like the Jehovah's Witnesses who call themselves "slaves." It just ranckles me. I'd be his servant, but never His slave. He can call me SERVANT or SON or FRIEND, but not "slave."
Once one conceives of a just God, the suffering is just something we have to go with for now. There's a reason we're here, I think, and it isn't just that man is a sinner, trying to work himself back into God's good graces.
But until the journey's end, judging God is an unwise option. Not that you'll go to Hell for it, but because it's self evident that we're walking in darkness and don't know enough to judge. Still, some people will.
.
