Is God just teasing us?

by joannadandy 64 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  JosephAlward

  JOE ALWARD: If the god described in the Bible exists, then that god evidently just decided not to know the future--all of it, in order to give man free will.

  LUCID SKY: Does knowledge remove free will? What of the prophetic nature of the Bible? Or does God not know the future, but just shape it the way he wants?

  JOE ALWARD: Does knowledge remove free will? If God knows you will do something, you MUST do it, otherwise God will have "known" something that would prove not to be so, and that's impossible for the god described in the Bible.

  What of the prophetic nature of the Bible? Some of them are either sufficiently vague that anyone with common sense could have made them. The rest either weren't fulfilled, or else they were written AFTER the events had already occurred, as is the case for the Book of Daniel.

  Does God not know the future, but just shape it the way he wants? God cannot "shape" the future without affecting man's free will.

  Edited by - JosephAlward on 12 December 2002 17:36:0
• 

  acsot

  Getting some distance on the WT point of view (i.e. not reading anything produced by the WT in the last four months), I have nonetheless been doing some Bible reading on and off in non-NWT versions. My other reading has been religious essays, commentaries, Greek mythology (and of course Agatha Christie ). One day I decided to re-read the first chapters of Genesis. My instinctive, gut reaction was, "how can anyone believe this stuff actually happened? It's a parable!"

  So, I don't know if God is teasing us or not, but my instincts (which are never wrong ) tell me that the Genesis account will only enlighten us as a metaphor for the consequences of our actions.

  Then again, maybe I'm totally out to lunch on this!
• 

  rem

  acsot,

  Wow, that's almost exactly the same thing that happened to me! Just reading the first few books of the Bible with a new perspective made me realize they were just filled with myths and oral traditions.

  rem

  Edited by - rem on 12 December 2002 16:3:5
• 

  JosephAlward

  ASCOT: "One day I decided to re-read the first chapters of Genesis. My instinctive, gut reaction was, "how can anyone believe this stuff actually happened? It's a parable!""

  JOE ALWARD: It is sad that so many people believe the Genesis stories are literally true. They actually believe, for example, that God paraded all of the birds and animals before Adam one at a time so he could call out names for them, and that God actually ripped a rib from Adams' chest to make a woman. It is just heartbreaking.

  19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof. 20 And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him. 21 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; 22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man. 23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.
• 

  Moxy

  why does it make any difference whether or not god did or did NOT see something? this type of thinking is anthropocentric, or anthropomorphic, a primitive worldview in which god is just like one of us, but stronger. the REAL question is whether or not the universe is determistic or not, that is, whether or not future events are fully determined before they happen. whether or not someone actually SAW the future or not is besides the point when it comes to free will. if the future is fully determined, then seen or unseen, both free will and time are illusions. if god created a deterministic universe and started events rolling then the outcome was as certain if he had done it himself. the passage of time would be irrelevant. the question would become as ridiculous as questioning whether a man was guilty of murder if he closes his eyes before firing the gun. the trajectory of the bullet and the outcome are as certain as the events in the imaginary garden of eden would have been if you accept a determinstic universe. and if you dont believe in determinism, then god cannot be all-powerful and all-knowing, there is simply no future to know beyond probabalities.

  mox
• 

  ballistic

  I don't think there is a simple answer to that Moxy. For instance, what of the philosophy that all out future "life lines" co-exist side by side and we simply live out one of our futures? (and the multiple universe world-views)
• 

  rem

  what of the philosophy that all out future "life lines" co-exist side by side and we simply live out one of our futures? (and the multiple universe world-views)

  At what level would this work? At the sentient being level? At the atomic level?

  Is there an infinite amount of universes taking in account every possible future for every atom and sub atomic particle in the universe? Or does this only apply to human contingencies? The former sounds quite improbable, while the latter sounds quite anthropocentric.

  rem

  Edited by - rem on 16 December 2002 19:44:30
• 

  Moxy

  the issue of determinism may not have a simple answer, but it is a simple question: can the state of a closed system at some time t be fully determined from measurements taken at some time before t? in the newtonian worldview, it can. in the einsteinian view, certainly the more correct view, it cannot, since absolute measurements cannot be taken to begin with. this is certianly not the end of the matter, and philsophers should certainly be free to continue pondering this all-important question unfettered by knowledge of quantum physics.

  more importantly, the WT view of the matter (selective foreknowledge) not only belies a total ignorance or lack of concern with these questions, it is, as religious doctrinal explanations go, purely banal and juvenile. it amounts to an argument as silly as homer simpson posed: "could jesus bake a burrito so hot that he himself could not eat it?"

  mox
• 

  peacefulpete

  test
• 

  peacefulpete

  Lets back up. We must first look carefully at the Genesis story. The imagery of trees of enlightenent and nakedness representing innocence are very ancient. So is the serpent but what is interesting is that here it represents evil whereas in other Indu-Asian mythologies the serpent is often men's advocate. The god's of healing and wisdom usually utilized the serpent motif. Aesculapius was represented by a pole with a winged serpent wrapped around it and this greek symbol still is used by our medical profession. So who cares right? The kicker is that the story as written in our bibles bares evidence of scribal editing. The Gnostics held that the serpent was originally the good guy encouraging men to pursue wisdom of the gods and better themselves, whereas the other god was concerned about losing control of humans if they got wise to them.( The Testimony of Truth) Other ancient jewish sourses seem to confirm their position. It is possible that when the jews aquired this ancient story they immediately altered the roles so as not to blaspheme their god. Or this may reflect a very early tradition that was later amended. I favor the latter as it explains the incomplete editing. What I mean by this is that the story retains elements that appear bizarre from a monotheistic perspective and this usually is evidence that the text was already part of a tradition when it was retouched, the editor would be more timid about discarding text but rather would seek to harmonize the old with the new. For instance ,Who were the "like one of us" that Yahwah was addressing? This has been explained as jesus, but it compromises god's uniqueness and complicates issues of free will.A simpler explanation is that this reflects a polytheistic tradition.The plural Elohim (gods) is used with he plural form of the verb and while not proof of polytheism it is consistent with it. Also ,why the cryptic curse to the serpent that it will crawl upon its belly? It makes perfect sense if in the myth it originally had wings. The bible's Seraphim (Seraph means firey or flying snake) were originally depicted as winged serpents.Abundant ancient artwork depict these seraphim in this way. The point is that this story has phlosophical problems because the whole tale has been reworked by a well meaning but unsophisticated editors who thought the story could be utilized if doctored up a bit. So all the debate about foreknowledge and free will based upon this story is bound to be frustrating.