Ministry in John 3:16

by JW Answers 21 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  Terry

  
  HERE IS SOMETHING TO CONSIDER AS AN ANALOGY to this TOPIC...
  

  
  Thalidomide was once considered a wonder drug.
  
  During early testing, researchers found it was virtually impossible to give test animals a lethal dose of the drug named THALIDOMIDE in the 1950s.
  Thalidomide was soon used as a sedative or tranquilizer treating a wide range of other conditions, including colds, flu, nausea, and morning sickness in pregnant women.
  
  Pharmaceutical companies boasted Thalidomide “can be given with complete safety to pregnant women and nursing mothers without adverse effect on mother or child.
  
  49 countries widely prescribed Thalidomide under several alternate brand names.
  
  It is estimated that over 10,000 babies were affected by the drug worldwide. Around half died within months of being born. The thalidomide babies who survived and their families live with the birth defects of the drug.
  
  All the above has been stated - here comes the ANALOGY.
  
  GOD permitted the distribution of birth defects (sin from Adam) as though He (YHWH) were ignorant of the damage in advance. As JWs teach: "God does not permit Himself to know certain things in advance." If we are to accept that deliberate ignorance, the results of transmission of the "sin of Adam" in subsequent offspring (Cain murders Abel) made it clear enough.
  
  So - what point am I making?
  
  The pharmaceutical company (in Germany) made reparations to victims as a result of a worldwide lawsuit.
  
  Cash was paid and no single person was held responsible. I
  guess you could say, Ignorance is bliss as long as cash is paid.
  
  Jehovah paid reparations to mankind and His "cash" was Jesus. Those who accept the payout are compensated. Those who don't are left in the lurch.
  
  Not a perfect analogy by any means but you may wish to comment.
  
  
  https://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/objects-and-stories/medicine/thalidomide#:~:text=Thalidomide%20is%20a%20drug%20that,morning%20sickness%20in%20pregnant%20women.

  
  
• 

  Vanderhoven7

  Hi Terry,

  GOD permitted the distribution of birth defects (sin from Adam) as though He (YHWH) were ignorant of the damage in advance. As JWs teach: "God does not permit Himself to know certain things in advance." If we are to accept that deliberate ignorance, the results of transmission of the "sin of Adam" in subsequent offspring (Cain murders Abel) made it clear enough.

  It seem, biblically speaking, that God knew in advance that man would sin. The lamb was slain before the foundation of the world. God could have made man operate on the level of lower animals where right and wrong, good and evil, don't exist. But it appears He wanted the crown of His creation to, like Him, be able to distinguish between good and evil and choose good. Even in his fallen state man can choose good and take responsibility for his actions, be faithful to his wife and family etc. Free will therefore is actual and not artificial and acts of evil merit condemnation and punishment.

  We can make our life and the lives of others a living hell or we can bless our neighbors with kindness and grace. And receiving grace makes it considerably easier to be kind and gracious....and that's good preaching.
  
  
• 

  smiddy3

  Their "version" of Almighty God and his son implies a mass-murdering of billions of people for being stupid, deceived, scripturally uneducated, not joining their sect of Christianity, etc. etc.

  Didn`t GOD set the precedent for this when he brought a world wide flood on the Earth ?
  
  
• 

  Vanderhoven7

  Hi Smiddy,

  Do you think that the American government in 1945 was justified in ordering the dropping of atomic bombs in Japan?
• 

  smiddy3

  Vanderhoven7

  The short answer is no ,I do not.

  The American Government ordered the dropping of an Atomic Bomb on two civillian cities ,Nagasaki and Hiroshima.

  And not on the armed forces of Japan who were responsible for carrying out the war.

  I`m really not sure of why the question ?
  
  
• 

  Vanderhoven7

  Hi Smiddy,

  I think you know why I asked the question.

  I see you don't embrace the adage, "All is fair in love and war".Good for you. How about, "The end justifies the means"?

  According to Gallop, the majority of Americans back then and still do today, approve of the bombings that resulted in the death of approximately 150,000 Japanese.

  Would you say that the majority of Americans are heartless?

  If you could see the future with perfect clarity, and forsaw the complete destruction of millions of American lives if these bombs had not been dropped, would you change your mind and go along with the majority?
• 

  TonusOH

  I think you have pointed out the difference, Vanderhoven7. Or at least one of them. God would be much better able to calculate the outcome of any of his potential decisions, far better than men could.

  I think God could also make it so any decision he made had a good outcome, one that was clearly of benefit to all. Was destroying almost all life with a global flood the best possible outcome to the problem of a lawless world? It's hard to think of a more punishing outcome. Was it beyond God's ability to rehabilitate that world? Was the world that followed the best possible outcome? It wasn't long after the waters receded, that Noah cursed one of his sons. And it wasn't much longer before Nimrod was building a tower to the heavens, an act that God saw as needing His direct intervention to prevent.

  If my choices in 1945 were the release of two atomic weapons versus a land-based invasion of the Japanese homeland, I might still choose the former if I knew the potential damage. The latter option might be the bloodier and more costly by far. But what if my other choice was to convince my enemy to sit down and agree to peace without either of those two options? Can you think of a scenario where you would not choose that third option?
• 

  Vanderhoven7

  Hi Tonus,

  Just for the record, I'm not supporting the bombing. I'm with Smiddy on that issue.

  <<Was it beyond God's ability to rehabilitate that world?>>

  As far as I can see, not without cancelling man's free will.

  <<But what if my other choice was to convince my enemy to sit down and agree to peace without either of those two options?>>

  Of course, that would be the best option....but what if it doesn't work?

  BTW, do you believe that the death penalty is sometimes warranted?

  
  
• 

  TonusOH

  BTW, do you believe that the death penalty is sometimes warranted?

  Yes. I think it's an appropriate punishment for someone who has displayed a depraved indifference towards human life.
• 

  Vanderhoven7

  Hi Tonus,

  
  

  "I think it's an appropriate punishment for someone who has displayed a depraved indifference towards human life."

  
  

  I agree. Not only is it a right but also a responsibility according to The instructions given Noah after the flood. And if man in certain circumstances has the right to take life, i believe God has that same right to take life in judgment of those who are "depraved and are indifferent towards human life"...as was obviously the case in Noah’s day according to Genesis 6

  
  

  
  

  ¶And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.... 11¶The earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence. 12 And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth...13¶And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth.

  
  

  It seems that God waits for the iniquity of man to come to the full before destruction is called for.

  
  

  I suspect this post will not be received well...but I question whether those who would judge God negatively for His judgments would be here today to condemn Him had the flood not happened.