by Norm 103 Replies latest jw friends
aChristian,
I do not have the time to straighten out all such misunderstandings for you. I wish I did. I hope you will take the time to do such study when it is needed.
You of course are assuming that you are right. The study has been done. If you want others to believe what you believe, then the burden of proof is upon you.
TR
Hi Alan,
Very interesting post. It doesn't seem like anything from the real world in the realm of faith. If you look at what the Bible say in the words of aChristians hero here:
Paul said, "For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written: 'I will destroy the wisdom of the wise; the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate.' Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the 'foolishness' of what was preached to save those who believe. Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ is the power of God and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than man's wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man's strength." (1 Corinthians 1:18 -25)
It seems clear that only uneducated superstitious fools would be able to grasp the whole idea of "Christ crucified". So that of course exclude a lot of people. It also explains a lot about the whole idea in my opinion.
Norm.
aChristian,
I agree with you--it does not make sense that Paul would try to establish congregations in Crete if he truly thought Cretans were always liars, vicious brutes, and lazy gluttons.
Even if he was exaggerating, even if this letter was meant to be read privately by Titus and Paul was only giving vent to his frustrations with the problems in Crete, his statement seems very prejudiced. If a bishop wrote to a missionary in Hawaii, "Hawaiians are always liars, vicious brutes, lazy gluttons," I would question his fitness for his post. Would you make allowances for an atheist who said, "Christians are always liars, vicious brutes, lazy gluttons"?
After I left the JWs, I received treatment at a center specializing in cognitive behavioral therapy. One common cognitive distortion is all-or-nothing thinking--you see things in black-and-white categories. Another is magnification (catastrophizing) or minimization--you exaggerate the important things (such as your goof-up or someone else's achievement), or you inappropriately shrink things until they appear tiny (your own desirable qualities or other fellow's imperfections).
The writing attributed to Paul seems rife with these sorts of cognitive errors. He quickly categorizes people as either pure or corrupt, believers of truth or detestable, disobedient unbelievers, unfit for any good work--all this mainly because their views on circumcision didn't match his own.
I spoke up about Paul because for years I thought he spoke for God. His words have been treated as law by many Christian churches. Yet, he seems to have been only human, capable of prejudices, frustrations, and faulty thinking, as are we all.
Ginny
Ginny,
You wrote: I spoke up about Paul because for years I thought he spoke for God. His words have been treated as law by many Christian churches. Yet, he seems to have been only human, capable of prejudices, frustrations, and faulty thinking, as are we all.
Though Paul is often criticized in ways I believe are unfair, I agree with you that he was certainly "only human, capable of prejudices, frustrations, and faulty thinking, as are we all."
As you have correctly pointed out, the scriptures sometimes contain the personal opinions and biased viewpoints of their writers. At times this is clearly stated and at other times it is not. God used men to write the Bible. Imperfect men. So, I understand the Bible to be the inspired word of God as spoken through imperfect human "filters."
I also believe fundamentalists misunderstand the word "inspired" when it is used in scripture to refer to the men who wrote the Bible. I believe they change the meaning of the word "inspired" to mean something quite different than Bible writers themselves meant when they used that word. At times Bible writers exactly wrote down God's words as given to them word for word. I believe only at those times does the word "inspired" mean what fundamentalists seem to feel it means at all times when it is used to describe the words of scripture.
I compare the process of God's inspiration of the Bible to Rembrandt painting a picture. Rembrandt no doubt chose the best paints, brushes and canvasses available to him at the time. That being the case, it would hardly be fair for us today to criticize one of his paintings for having colors which are not quite as vibrant as those we see in nature, or for having clearly visible brushstrokes. I believe God chose to use men to write the Bible. And I believe he chose the best men available to him at the time. That being the case, I do not think it is fair to criticize the Bible for containing human imperfections.
Mike
aChristian,
How does one determine which parts of the Bible are personal opinions and biased viewpoints? Are we to filter the Bible yet again through the filter of our own opinions, viewpoints, and perceptions? In what places have the words of God been written down word-for-word?
While I understand what you're saying about inspiration, the Rembrandt analogy falls down. Rembrandt was limited; God is supposed to be omnipotent. He is the owner of the big art store in the sky and can have any materials he wishes. I do not understand why, in a matter so important as communicating his wishes to mankind, he chose to use inferior materials.
You say it's not fair to to criticize a Rembrandt for having colors which are not quite as vibrant as those we see in nature, or for having clearly visible brushstrokes. Perhaps it is not fair to expect old world materials to do what modern ones can, but I do think it is fair to notice and comment on imperfections in the painting, criticizing it if you will, while at the same time understanding why the imperfections are there.
I find it annoying that many Bible believers want to pretend that there are no brushstrokes and that the colors *are* as vibrant as nature. It's like the Emperor's New Clothes. Those who do dare speak up about the inconsistencies and flaws in the Bible are often labeled as wicked, godless people.
I can accept Paul's words as a record of his struggle to make sense of his world. I can accept that he was trying to express how profoundly he was affected by an experience he called Jesus. In this context, his humanity and weaknesses endear him to me. It is only when he is held up as arbiter of God's law for the next 2,000 years that I find him distasteful.
Ginny
Ginny,
You asked: How does one determine which parts of the Bible are personal opinions and biased viewpoints?
I believe a careful reading of the text in question, along with its context, done by a person possessing a fair amount of common sense, who has also prayed for God's help in making such determinations, will have no trouble doing so.
You asked: Are we to filter the Bible yet again through the filter of our own opinions, viewpoints, and perceptions?
To some extent, we all filter everything we read "through the filter of our own opinions, viewpoints, and perceptions." However, those seeking to truly understand the Bible, or anything else for that matter, do their best to put aside all of their preconceived notions and prejudices while doing their reading.
You asked: In what places have the words of God been written down word-for-word?
All such places are usually clearly noted by the Bible writer. In the Old Testament they are usually accompanied by phrases such as, "The word of the Lord came to me," and "I the Lord have spoken." In the New Testament many translations make it quite easy. For they print the words of Christ in red. At times, in Paul's letters he tells his readers, "I give this command (not I, but the Lord)."
You wrote: I do not understand why, in a matter so important as communicating his wishes to mankind, he chose to use inferior materials.
Myself, I am glad God chose to reveal His will to us through the writings of men. By doing so God showed us that, despite the fact that we often fail to do what is right, He still loves us and accepts us as His children, and does not feel that we are not good enough for Him to speak to or through.
Mike
Mike,
As I understand you, you assert that the reason humans suffer in this life, is because God wants to test us. If we pass the test (that is, do our best to live 'rightous' lives), then we will be perfect in the next life.
Obviously, you have then rejected the "free will" defence for the existence of God in the face of evil.
The "this life is only a test"-theory is also faulty, for a number of reasons. Nobody has demonstrated what exactly is being tested. Humans live under very different circumstances. Those who are born in a Buddhist, Hindu or Muslem country almost invariably end up in these traditions. Do they go to hell by default? Most people have also been born in utmost poverty, without any life that can be considered a test of anything, except dying. What exactly was it God wanted to test, given that he created humans so at least half of all children dies shortly after birth? Did he want to test how effective the bacteria and virus he had created was at killing humans?
If God wanted to test anything, the present world is almost the worst testing grounds imaginable. Most people die and suffer from random causes: natural disasters, illness, epidemics, violence from outsiders. Surely, it would be much better for God to test humans in an envirionemtn where the playing field is even, and when people have the time and energy to do anything else than survive (and, rather, failing at survival).
Naturally, sooner or later all Christian apologetics falls into the Last Restort theory of ethics (more commonly known as the Divine Command Theory of Ethics):
God cannot act unrighteously because God decides what is right and wrong.
Let’s look at the Divine Command theory of ethics. It holds that "morally good" means "commanded by God" and that "morally wrong" means "forbidden by God." It’s that simple. There are many objections to this theory, and this is the reason Christians generally don’t really hold it. Some, like you, appeal to it when they are faced with tough questions, but that’s just a convenient ad hoc position.
If this theory is true, it follows that God’s moral choices are arbitrary. By that I mean that there is no outside definition or judgment of good or evil that can be used to evaluate God’s decision. So, if God had decided that murder, rape and torture was morally good, then it was good. Theists cannot possibly deny the possibility that God could have so ordained, because then they would have to admit that their moral judgments are really independent of God’s. At this point, practically everyone understands that the Divine Command theory of ethics is totally absurd.
Christians generally hold that God commands certain things because these are good. But under this theory, it’s the other way around. Before God commands that helping old ladies over a street is good, it is not good. Before God says that raping young girls is wrong, it is not wrong. Further, it follows from this theory that God cannot justify his moral decisions. If God gives a reason for moral decisions, then there are objective reasons beyond God’s arbitrary decisions (ie. they are not arbitrary at all), and there are standards beyond God’s command on which His moral decisions are founded.
A refutation of this argument can be found in Plato's Euthyphro, where Socrates asks a question that is an effective refutation of the Divine Command theory. Expressed in monotheistic terms, it could be summarized: "Are certain actions good because God commands them, or does God command them because they are good?" Michael S. Valle, in the essay "A Critique of the Divine Command Theory of Ethics," (I have downloaded it from the Net, but now that URL is invalid) and referring to Baruch Bordy, lists the argument like this:
1. Let us suppose that it is the case that there is some action A that is right (wrong) only because God wants us to do (refrain from doing) it.
2. There must be some reason for God's wanting us to do (refrain from doing) A, some reason that does not involve God's wanting us to do (refrain from doing) it.
3. Therefore, that reason must also be a reason why A is right (wrong).
4. So we have a contradiction, (1) is false, and either there are no actions that are right (wrong) because God wants us to do (refrain from doing) them or, if there are such actions, that is not the only reason why those actions are right (wrong)
The attempts made to refute this argument have not, to put it mildly, been convincing.
The Bible itself also clearly refutes the Divine Command theory. When God explained his punishment over Sodom, Abraham demonstrated that he believed that right and wrong existed apart from God:
Ge 18:23,25 "Then Abraham approached and began to say: "Will you really sweep away the righteous with the wicked? … It is unthinkable of you that you are acting in this manner to put to death the righteous man with the wicked one so that it has to occur with the righteous man as it does with the wicked! It is unthinkable of you. Is the Judge of all the earth not going to do what is right?""
Is it not indeed? And from the existence of suffering and evil, something that would be unthinkable if there were an all-powerful, all-benevolent Judge and God, we can conclude that such a God does not exist.
Lastly, let me tell you exactly what I mean when I say that the existence of evil, in particular natural evil, is impossible to harmonize with the existence of the God of classical theism. I have quoted this example earlier on H2O, from a famous Usenet article that really nailed the issues, but it bears repeating at this point:
Let me quote a real-world example just to put this in perspective. I don't know if you know this, but there are viruses in the world that make AIDS look just like a picnic. They're called hot viruses, and these things are nasty. There was a story on them that ran in the Seattle Post Intelligencer on December 26th, 1994. I'm going to quote an excerpt from it. This is the description of someone coming down with this virus:=======
The headache begins typically on the seventh day after exposure to the viral agent. On the seventh day after his visit to Kittiam Cave in January 1980, Monet felt a throbbing pain behind his eyeballs. The pain begin to circle around the inside of his head. It would not go away with Aspirin. And then he got a severe backache.
On the third day after his headeache started, he became nauseated, spiked a fever and began to vomit. At the same time he became strangely passive. His face lost all appearance of life. and set itself into a motionless mass, with the eyeballs fixed, paralytically staring. The eyelids were slightly droopy, and the eyeballs seemed almost frozen in their sockets where they turned bright red. The skin of his face turned yellowish, with brilliant starlike red speckles. He began to look like a zombie. His personality changed and became sullen, resentful, angry. His memory seemed to be blown away.
When a hot virus multiplies in its host, it can center the body of the virus particles from the brain to the skin. Experts then say the virus undergoes, extreme amplification. By the time extreme amplification peaks out, an eyedropper of the victim's blood may contain a hundred million particles of virus.
In a waiting area at the Casualty Department, Nairobi Hospital, Monet appeared to hold himself rigid, as if any movement would rupture something inside him. His blood was clotting up, and the clots were lodging everywhere: his liver, kidneys, lungs, hands, feet, and head. In effect, he was having a stroke throughout his whole body.
Clots were accumulating in his intestinal muscles, cutting up the blood supply to his intestines. The intestinal muscles were beginning to die. The intestines were starting to go slack.
His personality was being wiped away by brain damage. Monet sat silently, waiting to receive attention. Suddenly, it went into the last phase. The human virus bomb exploded. Military biohazard specialists say that the victim is crashed and bled.
Monet became dizzy and utterly weak, and his spine went limp. He is going into shock. He leaned over, head on his knees, and brought up an incredible quantity of blood from his stomach. and spilled it onto the floor, with a gasping moan. He lost consciousness, and pitched forward. When he pitched foreward onto the floor, the only sound was the choking in his throat, as he continued to vomit while unconscious. Then came a sound like a bed sheet being torn in half, the sound of his bowels opening and venting blood from his anus, those mixed with intestinal lining, he sloffed his gut, Monet had crashed was bleeding out.
Having destroyed its host, the virus was now coming out of every orifice, trying to find a new host.
=======
Now, I ask you, isn't is possible that God could have made this guy suffer just a little bit less? Maybe just bled out of his nose? Of course He could have. This means that there could be less harm in the world than there actually is. But this should not be possible if God were omniscient, omnibenevolent, and omniponent. So, He must lack at least one of these characteristics. However, all of these characteristics are essential to God. A being is not God if it lacks one of them. Hence, God does not exist.
- Jan
--
"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen"
-- Albert Einstein
Hi Jan,
Good decription of how ghastly Ebola is......I think the case your speaking of was the Ebola Zaire(yambuku) strain...1980....that along with Marburg,Lassa CCHF(Crimean Congo Hemmorhagic fever) etc etc etc, should make one wonder about any so-called benevolent being.....just an odd fact for ya here,the index case that began the Ebola spread in Zaire(Kikwit village)1995 was a Jehovahs Witness named Gaspard Menga Kitanbala.......something I came across...cheers,Tina
Thanks, Tina.
Yes, I remember something about a JW family being the first victims of an ebola epidemic. Apparantly, something to do with how they treated blood caused them to be infected. Another "jehovah-protects-us-because-we-keep-his-laws" story you will never read in Awake! magazine.
- Jan
--
"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen"
-- Albert Einstein
Jan,
You wrote: As I understand you, you assert that the reason humans suffer in this life, is because God wants to test us.
I don't think you understand me. I believe God allows evil to exist so that we may come to know both good and evil. I believe this first hand knowledge will serve all people well for all eternity, long after all evil has been removed from the universe.
You wrote: Those who are born in a Buddhist, Hindu or Muslim country almost invariably end up in these traditions. Do they go to hell by default? Most people have also been born in utmost poverty, without any life that can be considered a test of anything, except dying. What exactly was it God wanted to test, given that he created humans so at least half of all children dies shortly after birth?
First of all, God has promised to resurrect everyone who has ever lived and died, Christian, Buddhist, Hindu, Muslim and atheist alike. I believe at that time "God will judge men's secrets through Jesus Christ," including all those who did not have an opportunity to accept Christ as their Savior before they died. (Romans 2:16) I also believe that when Christ returns someday he will do so for the purpose of judging only the Christian world. The Watchtower Society teaches that God will soon kill everyone on earth except true Christians. Fortunately, the Bible does not teach that. Two-thirds of the earth's population has never even heard the good news of Jesus Christ, including billions of people in lands like China and India.
One thing that leads me to believe this way is that that the Bible tells us that "Judgment begins with the house of God." (1 Peter 4:17) Jesus also said those who will rule as kings with Him will "judge the 12 tribes of Israel." (Luke 22:30) To me this indicates that when Christ returns and draws all true Christians to Himself (Matt. 24:31), they will then determine who among those who have heard the good news of Jesus Christ and not taken it to heart are deserving of death. For "The 12 tribes of Israel," spoken of in Luke 22:30, I believe refers to all those who have heard the good news preached by those whom Galatians 6:16 calls "the Israel of God." Remember, the literal "12 tribes of Israel" had all heard the Law of Moses, but few had taken it to heart.
Remember too that it was only the city of Jerusalem that was destroyed in 70 AD, not the entire Roman empire, after those in Jerusalem who heeded Christ's words of warning had escaped. And First Century Jerusalem has long been understood to picture the Christian world, or as Jehovah's Witnesses call it, "Christendom." Also to be considered is a fact known by most serious students of the Bible, history and science. The flood of Noah's day was a local event, not a global one. God brought that judgment only upon a land that had heard the message of "Noah, a preacher of righteousness," and failed to respond to it. (2 Pet. 2:5) God did not take the lives of those in other parts of then widely populated earth who had not heard Noah's preaching.
Interestingly, Revelation chapters 8 and 9 talk quite a bit about "a third of the world" being judged. And by population, the part of the world claiming Christianity as its religion is almost exactly one-third. (See The World Almanac 1998, page 654)
If this understanding is correct, that Christ is returning to judge only the Christian world, Christians will then have plenty of people to rule over as they serve as kings with Christ for 1,000 years. These will include the billions of people you spoke of "who are born in a Buddhist, Hindu or Muslim country." Christians will then help these same people along with maybe billions more from the Christian world, who they showed mercy to knowing they had never received a proper Christian witness, to help come to know the true God as they serve as His "priests." For that is, after all, what priests do.
You quoted me as saying, "God cannot act unrighteously because God decides what is right and wrong." If you read the context of what I wrote you will see that I was not saying that God's decisions as to what constitutes right and wrong are arbitrary decisions. Rather, I was saying that like a parent, God is allowed to make rules for his children which he himself does not have to follow. A parent may tell his small children that they are not allowed to cross the street but a parent is not being hypocritical for crossing the street himself. Parents decide what is right and wrong for their children and cannot be accused of behaving unrighteously if they do not appear to be following all of those same rules.
You wrote: ... the existence of evil, in particular natural evil, is impossible to harmonize with the existence of the God of classical theism. .... isn't is possible that God could have made this guy suffer just a little bit less? Maybe just bled out of his nose? Of course He could have. This means that there could be less harm in the world than there actually is. But this should not be possible if God were omniscient, omnibenevolent, and omnipotent. .... Hence, God does not exist.
Your question, "Isn't is possible that God could have made this guy suffer just a little bit less?" gets to the heart of the problem of God permitting evil. Let me ask you this. If a good God does exist, would you really believe it if you saw "this guy suffering just a little bit less?" Of course you would not. For you know as well as I do that an omniscient, omnibenevolent, and omnipotent God, once He decided to stop evil, would have to stop all evil. If He were to stop only part of the evil that exists in this world, wouldn't you then still be asking the question, "If God exists, why is there evil in the world?" Would you really be any more likely to accept the existence of God if He stopped all "natural evil," pain caused by disease, earthquakes and the like, but allowed people to continue hurting each other? Of course you would not be. For a perfectly righteous God, once He decided to bring about an end to evil would have to bring about an end to all evil. He could not end all "natural evil" but allow people to continue to murder each other. He could not prevent all murder but continue to permit beatings and rapes. He could not stop all beatings and rapes but continue to allow all robberies, cheating and adultery.
I think you get my point. And I get yours. Basically, your position really maintains that any amount of pain or unrighteousness in the universe proves there is no God. However, I maintain that God has allowed pain, death and evil to exist for a time in order for us to learn valuable lessons while being exposed to it. I also believe that God will one day bring an end to evil. And I believe that, when He does so, He will then bring an end to all evil.
Mike
