Freedom to Choose God

by UnDisfellowshipped 774 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • Terry
    Terry

    Ever wonder about the whole "fallen" nature of man? Nobody has ever really explained it. It isn't very scientific to think "sin" can be inherited, after all.

    That is a huge premise, Adamic sin. I think, personally, it is a bogus concept because it comes from St.Augustine and is a primitive misunderstanding of what is inheritable.

    People use to think if your mother was frightened when she was pregnant that her baby would be "marked" by the experience! Utter bilge, of course. Nonsense.

    If there really once was a "perfect" man---we'd have to ask ourselves what the nature of being PERFECT actually means. If it means without "flaw" then, what kind of flaw was absent?

    Adam, according to the tale, screwed up his very first test of perfection, didn't he? How does that argue for perfection? Not at all.

    Further, the justice or injustice of holding UNborn children responsible for what their parents did is not only bizarre but, frankly, fiendish! Who but a very primitive writer or storyteller would think this reflected a wisdom from above?

    So, just on the grounds of what is fair, just, scientifically feasible and reasonable (not to mention loving and responsible) I have to reject the Bible tale of how mankind needs saving.

    Next, we might try to think of the whole "shedding of blood" scenario as the most ancient and worthless of early man's ideas. It is a barbaric notion that pouring out blood means anything other than that something had to die for a weirdo religious crackpot to do his thing.

    Let us face facts. The fact is that the earth was not specially made for mankind. How do I know? Well, the remains of several million dinosaurs over a period of millions and millions of years shows they were here first. And more than that, these animals were mostly two groups: flesh-eating and ferocious predators and peaceful and innocent vegetarians that feared for their lives. What is the point of all that in god's great scheme of things? Death and destruction are everywhere in nature from the most primordial times. I see nothing of a supreme being in all that.

    As far as Jesus dying for mankind....let us look at that for just a second. Jesus said: "Father, forgive them for they KNOW NOT what they do". And I ask you in return, is Jesus basing his desire for the forgiveness on :

    1.Faith? No, the people who killed him showed no faith in him.

    2.Accurate knowledge of god's purposes and messianic kingdom? No, they are ignorant and opposed.

    3.Response to a divine plan? No. Jesus is just saying forgive them because these people don't have a clue!

    So, how then, can we create a whole religious doctrine around faith, baptism, preaching, joining, believing etc if Jesus himself based forgiveness in his dying moments on the simple fact that sinners did not have a clue what they were doing?

    The bible, it seems to me, based on my explorations of history and scholarly writings, is a far-fetched assemblage of crackpot ideas, wrong-headed guesses, and mystical story-telling mixed in with political and folk inspired traditions.

    Keep this in mind, however, for thousands of years very very smart people have done everything they can to keep it all pasted together and looking shipshape in order to refute just such an accusation!

    Religious people must have a power base. The Bible serves that purpose. If a religious group can claim special and mystical inside information UNavailable to the rank and file peon; then and only then do they have them in the palm of their hand to manipulate.

    I personally don't bother trying to piece together all those old weirdo ideas and try and make logical sense out of them. Why? Because there is no "there" there. You'll get about as comprehensive a world view at the local looney bin interviewing people who think they are Napoleon.

    The bible is a shadow of man's interior confusion about his own postulates and suppositions, fears and projections. When man controls and abuses other men, it is always in the name of some peculiar document. The bible is among the worst of these.

    I ask that no one take what I say on face value. Feel free to think and choose what appeals to you. For my own sanity I have chosen this view. I invite anyone to read about how the bible was put together by the editors and redactors through the ages and THEN make a determination. That is what I've done.

    Terry

  • LittleToe
    LittleToe

    Terry:
    The devil is in the detail.

    There is much to learn about our subconscious from myths and our response to them, wouldn't you agree?

    So, given that you have an evident opinion about the subject matter at hand (complete with some advice - thanks, I'm doing that already), what is yours as per the thread title?
    (Other than just deriding the participants, who are quite happily enjoying a nice theological debate, thanks, coz that's their cup of tea...)

  • Deputy Dog
    Deputy Dog

    LT

    Your problem isn't with me.

    Romans 9:19

    Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will? 20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it , Why hast thou made me thus?

    That's not hyper-calvinism or double-predestination.

    D Dog

  • LittleToe
    LittleToe

    DDog:
    Actually my argument IS with you:

    I think the whole point here is that, according to the bible, when it comes to salvation, man has no responsibility (response ability).

    Man DOES have responsibility. To deny that denies the founding principles of Calvin's theology.

    I have little difficulty with what Paul has to say, just your interpretation of it, which makes it more extreme.
    Does Paul anywhere say that man has no responsibility? Instead I find him saying "God forbid", a few times, regarding this.

  • AlanF
    AlanF

    Excellent points, Terry. They make questions such as this thread's title rather moot. Kind of like "Freedom to Choose Santa Clause".

    AlanF

  • LittleToe
    LittleToe

    That was condescending, Alan.
    Some people like chess, some people like theology, etc., etc., etc.

    Moot or not, it's been an enjoyable few weeks, for some of the lads. Why rain on the parade?

  • SixofNine
    SixofNine

    :Why rain on the parade?


    Because, LT, this particular parade has steamrolled and crushed humanity for far too long unchallenged. When you see it challenged, even brutally, it is always a good thing.

  • LittleToe
    LittleToe

    Yeah, I guess you're right. Discussion of theology on a forum is a bloodthirsty business...

  • SixofNine
    SixofNine

    s'pose so. Theology, after all, is a bloodthirsty business. ;-)

  • Deputy Dog
    Deputy Dog

    Terry

    Ever wonder about the whole "fallen" nature of man? Nobody has ever really explained it. It isn't very scientific to think "sin" can be inherited, after all.

    I don't believe the "fallen" nature of man is the same thing as sin. Sin is a result of the "fallen" nature.

    That is a huge premise, Adamic sin. I think, personally, it is a bogus concept because it comes from St.Augustine and is a primitive misunderstanding of what is inheritable.

    Well first, I don't share your concept of "Adamic sin". You seem to be a perfect example of the fallen nature. Sorry if that offends you, but we all start out in rebellion of God, and that is the "fallen nature". Another way of saying this is "man is not a sinner because sins, he sins because he is a sinner" I don't see anything anywhere in the bible that says God is holding "children responsible for what their parents did". Adamic sin simply proves that man can and will sin. So I don't think you know the "Bible tale" of how mankind needs saving. 2nd, I think Paul did a good job teaching this concept (the fallen nature) long before St.Augustine.

    Let us face facts. The fact is that the earth was not specially made for mankind. How do I know? Well, the remains of several million dinosaurs over a period of millions and millions of years shows they were here first. And more than that, these animals were mostly two groups: flesh-eating and ferocious predators and peaceful and innocent vegetarians that feared for their lives. What is the point of all that in god's great scheme of things? Death and destruction are everywhere in nature from the most primordial times. I see nothing of a supreme being in all that.

    I don't know where you get your facts. Many of these "facts" are still hotly debated. But I love how you caracterized your dinosaurs "ferocious, peaseful and innocent"

    So, how then, can we create a whole religious doctrine around faith, baptism, preaching, joining, believing etc if Jesus himself based forgiveness in his dying moments on the simple fact that sinners did not have a clue what they were doing?

    Now that my friend is a good question? That's why my faith is based on God's mercy!

    I personally don't bother trying to piece together all those old weirdo ideas and try and make logical sense out of them. Why? Because there is no "there" there. You'll get about as comprehensive a world view at the local looney bin interviewing people who think they are Napoleon.

    So tell us, who do you think you are?

    I ask that no one take what I say on face value. Feel free to think and choose what appeals to you. For my own sanity I have chosen this view. I invite anyone to read about how the bible was put together by the editors and redactors through the ages and THEN make a determination. That is what I've done.

    I wonder why you didn't Choose God. D Dog PS What do you think Undisfellowshipped?

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit