This is What I Would Need in Order to Believe

by cofty 496 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

EdenOne

My opinion is I can't escape from all consequences of acts (physical and metaphysical) done by my ancestors.
You are in contradiction with the Scriptures, then. When asked by his disciples if a man had been born blind because of the sins of his forebearers, Jesus denied that it was so. He also denied that he was blind for something he had done himself. (John 9:1-3) In turn, Jesus suggested that God had singled out this man to suffer decades of blindness so that he could perform a heal miracle spectacle to awe people. This explanation also makes god look like a moral monster who plays with people's lives and doesn't really care for their suffering.
In what way a child being born blind is a "consequence" of the sins of its forebearers?It It can only be so, not by default, but by direct determination of god. A god that makes someone pay for the sins of his forebearers is a moral monster who doesn't deserve to be worshipped. It's definetively NOT the god of love that christianity portrays.
John_Mann

(You are in contradiction with the Scriptures, then. When asked by his disciples if a man had been born blind because of the sins of his forebearers, Jesus denied that it was so. He also denied that he was blind for something he had done himself. (John 9:1-3) In turn, Jesus suggested that God had si gled out this man to suffer decades of blindness so that he could perform a heal miracle spectacle to awe people. This explanation also makes god look like a moral monster who plays with people's lives and doesn't really care for their suffering.
This is a very controversial event. It's used to defend Calvinism. This is a very very long discussion.
In any case, a god that makes someone pay for the sins of his forebearers is a moral monster who doesn't deserve to be worshipped.
It's not sinS and not all ancestors.
It's a very specific sin regarding the human nature itself committed only by the first souled human couple in a very specific situation (somewhere in Mesopotamia about 6.000 years ago).
The physical Eden is a recent interpretation. The old traditions said the Eden are in the spiritual realm (the paradise that Jesus told to the good thief and/or the Bosom of Abraham. Islam has the same view).
More than our ancestors they were representing the very human nature. Just like an entire country must face the consequences of the acts from their leaders. Even those who didn't vote (or agree with) in the leaders must face the consequences too.
It's not that hard to understand that.
punkofnice

Cofty - Prayers would get answered reliably. Confirmation bias would not be necessary. The prayers of believers would have real and observable power.
Indeed. This is a good point.
Just this one thing, 'confirmation bias', alone is all I have read from the believers in god/s thus far. There is nothing provable or obvious in any of the pro-god explanations. Nothing of benefit to humankind. All I see is reams of...well....to put it succinctly..... utter rubbish! (I originally had another word in mind, but it was a bit rude).
EdenOne

This is a very controversial event. It's used to defend Calvinism. This is a very very long discussion.
Are you avoiding the question? By all means, grace us with your apologetics of the god that made that man blind from birth. Because either "god did it" (for a number of possible reasons claimed by theistic apologetics) and then god is a moral monster; or then god didn't do it but is powerless or indifferent to stop it and then, why is he a god that merits worshipping?

It's not sinS and not all ancestors.
It's a very specific sin regarding the human nature itself committed only by the first souled human couple in a very specific situation (somewhere in Mesopotamia about 6.000 years ago).
It doesn't matter who committed that sin. Making others pay for it goes against basic justice and decency. Makes god a moral monster, not to mention an assassin.
Even those who didn't vote (or agree with) in the leaders must face the consequences too.
Not a good analogy. The god of the Bible made it entirely impossible for someone to escape suffering and death in the physical domain, the only one we can universally verify that exists. While many people find themselves trapped by political situations, they can always attempt to escape and some do it successfully, so it's not an inevitability.
I swear, the more I read theist apologetics, the more inclined I am towards atheism. If nothing else, just by sheer disgust.
John_Mann

Not a good analogy. The god of the Bible made it entirely impossible for someone to escape suffering and death in the physical domain, the only one we can universally verify that exists. While many people find themselves trapped by political situations, they can always attempt to escape and some do it successfully, so it's not an inevitability.
He provided a very simple escape from the worse consequence of the original sin.
You can escape from a tyrannical country but not without some inevitable sacrifice.
Even moving from a house to another in the same street demands some inevitable unpleasant situations.
That's how things work.
John_Mann

Are you avoiding the question? By all means, grace us with your apologetics of the god that made that man blind from birth. Because either "god did it" (for a number of possible reasons claimed by theistic apologetics) and then god is a moral monster; or then god didn't do it but is powerless or indifferent to stop it and then, why is he a god that merits worshipping?
Regarding the man blind from his birth, God sustains and permits everything that happens, even the (moral and natural evil).
God will sustain and permits the existence of evil forever (in an isolated way: Hell).
The cause of blindness of that man (his name was Celidonius) was not inherited moral evil but natural evil.
God is the only one who can make (greater) good from evil. That's the very point why Jesus said that.

Nobody else can make good from evil. If you start with evil you will continue with evil.
EdenOne

I take it that the "worse consequence of sin", as per your defense, would be perpetual, conscient nihl.
You say, then, that the consequence of the metaphorical original sin is god not stopping the soul from falling into a default state of perpetual nihl. "Salvation", then, is god actively rescueing the soul from nihl, while "doom" is god denying the soul such intervention. Is this your belief?
Lets leave aside the discussion about the existence of a "soul" and for the sake of discussion, assume that it simply exists. Let's also forget for a moment that none of what you describe as being your christian belief is backed by the Bible or by the teachings of Jesus or the apostles - it actually goes against much of it.
You said that god gives each man a soul at the moment of conception. That makes god the causing agent of that soul, not the physical parents. God isn't bound by any law according to which he must abide to give a soul to every fertilized human egg. He has a choice to give it or not give a soul. By causing a soul to exist, god is taking responsability for such soul. If god is the causing agent of the existence of that soul, it is entirely god's responsability that such soul is made to pay for the original sin. Because, you know, he chose to create that soul. If, because of the original sin, that human is born defective, or dies in a horrific tsunami, it is entirely god's will. Because an almighty god could a) decided to not give that human a soul; b) have crated a world where tsunamis didn't exist, because they're entirely not needed for life to exist; c) have created a world where humans would be miraculously protected from natural disasters and genetic defects.
And finally, after injustly subjecting millions of human beings to needless suffering during their physical life, god decides, after a few years, to resign from responsability towards the soul he created by doing nothing to stop that soul from falling into a perpetual state of sentient nihil.
I wonder - is this a god worth believing and worshipping?
deegee

John_Mann,
"Well this is your opinion."
There is no justice system in the world that requires innocent children to pay the penalty for a crime committed by their parents.
It certainly isn't justice (divine or otherwise) to condemn not only the criminal to death, but also his offspring who have nothing to do with his crime. It certainly isn't justice if the law which governs societies today wasn’t satisfied with the death of a criminal but came after his offspring and executed them as well for his crime.
If God's creation appears to have a keener sense of justice and empathy than he does, then does that not raise some worrying questions about God's nature?
Why would you want to serve a God like that?
deegee

John_Mann,
No comments on the following?
"It's a personal axiom (I'd experienced a paranormal event)."
So, can you specifically tell when it is the unconscious dynamics of your mind at work versus when God is communicating with you?
Can you make a clear distinction between these two things? If so, how exactly are you able to make this distinction?
John_Mann

I take it that the "worse consequence of sin", as per your defense, would be perpetual, conscient nihl.
Not because is a perpetual state neither because is conscious pursue of nihil. Because there are a lot of people pursuing nihil right now, they try really hard to accept this fate.
But there's a difference between here and Hell.
Here our souls are always nurtured with the presence of God giving us a chance.
In Hell this will cease. And this event will be the worse thing ever and will be fixed forever (in a state with a different time which for us is like an eternal moment).
You say, then, that the consequence of the metaphorical original sin is god not stopping the soul from falling into a default state of perpetual nihl.
True to people living after the crucifixion.
"Salvation", then, is god actively rescueing the soul from nihl, while "doom" is god denying the soul such intervention. Is this your belief?
Almost. The perdition must be intentional after proper discernment.
Lets leave aside the discussion about the existence of a "soul" and for the sake of discussion, assume that it simply exists.
That's the spirit! You finally understood my intention. I just want an intellectual conversation about Christianity. The merit if it's valid or not must be considered personally. But we can verify the logical consistency of the system. Because truth must be self consistent at least.
Let's also forget for a moment that none of what you describe as being your christian belief is backed by the Bible or by the teachings of Jesus or the apostles.
Strange... But let's try.

This is What I Would Need in Order to Believe

Share this