Freedom to Choose God

by UnDisfellowshipped 774 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  AlanF

  I meant it to be condescending, LittleToe. Nothing personal towards you, though. While I certainly agree that it's fine to discuss fine points of theology, for reasons nicely stated by SixOfNine I think that a note of reality sometimes needs to be injected into such discussions.

  Really, the problem of predators and prey, as noted by Terry, is fatal to any consideration of the God of the Bible as a Nice Guy, wouldn't you say? It also casts extreme doubt on His very existence. For me, this problem is one reason I don't believe in the Bible or any religious notions connected with it. By contrast with this problem, the notion of free will versus predestinationism is miniscule, just a notch above the problem of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

  The problem of "Jesus as ransomer" is just about as bad. It's clearly the result of thousands of years of religious myth based on blood sacrifices. Can you really imagine that a Creator God capable of making our intricate universe is interested in animal or human blood sacrifices? Isn't it evident that the "ransom doctrine" is the product of people who were primarily interested in blood sacrifices, and not the other way round?

  Note that I've discussed these, and plenty of other basic problems of biblical notions, with plenty of Christians besides JWs, and not one has been able to offer anything beyond the sort of self-serving rationalizations offered up by JWs.

  AlanF
• 

  Deputy Dog

  So tell us AlenF, What caused the BIG BANG?
• 

  LittleToe

  Alan:I just caught sight of this, before heading to bed, but you deserve a reply.

  We all work to various frameworks, in this life.
  For some, they work to the ethos of a deity. Since this "belief" helps them get through life, giving them purpose and assuaging certain fears and concerns, it simply works for them. If they desire to complicate it with further mental gymnastics, so be it.

  The nature of "Belief" is that it must be believed, else it loses it's power.
  You may believe this is of little purpose, in your own schemata of the universe, but I can assure you that to others it is not. You no doubt hold some of your own...

  If you'll permit, I'll take an analogy of Martial Arts (my current favourite).
  Therein motion follows intent, leading to achievement. The same is to be found in all manner of "belief", IMHO.

  I have no desire to argue the efficacy of Christ's blood, with you, if that framework does nothing for you. However to one who does find it gives them substance, I can discuss it till the cows come home. Is it real? What is real? How far do you go with that philosophical preoccupation? Are you real? Who IS the real AlanF? I've never met you, but I make certain assumptions (some of which may, or may not be true).

  I only state that for the believer it is so...

  Now that in no way puts me on the side of those who do (IMHO) totally irrational things with that belief, like running around claiming that homosexuals deserve AIDS, kill or shun their fellowman, and suchlike. To be honest, I don't even like some of the dogmatism and judgementalism that even theology can give rise to (as you will see from my arguments just this week, on this very thread). Nonetheless I enjoy discussing it.

  Was that another near enough approximation to the JW-mindset and rationale, for you?
• 

  AlanF

  I'll tell you, Deputy Dog, after you tell me what caused God.

  AlanF
• 

  AlanF

  Hiya LittleToe:

  : We all work to various frameworks, in this life.

  True. Some such frameworks are based on reality and some are not, and some are efficacious and some are not.

  : For some, they work to the ethos of a deity.

  Right. And some work to the ethos of an L. Ron Hubbard or a Santa Clause.

  : Since this "belief" helps them get through life, giving them purpose and assuaging certain fears and concerns, it simply works for them. If they desire to complicate it with further mental gymnastics, so be it.

  I take it you place Santa Clause and the Scientology of L. Ron Hubbard on the same level as Bible-based Christianity.

  : The nature of "Belief" is that it must be believed, else it loses it's power.

  True enough. Once you quit believing in Scientology or Santa it doesn't do much for you.

  : You may believe this is of little purpose, in your own schemata of the universe, but I can assure you that to others it is not.

  I understand. Christian belief is as efficacious to its believers as Scientology and northern elves are to its believers.

  : You no doubt hold some of your own...

  Scientology, Christianity, and other such subjective things are not among them. I tend to hold beliefs for which there is a substantial amount of actual evidence. I.e., ones that have at least a modicum of scientific basis.

  : If you'll permit, I'll take an analogy of Martial Arts (my current favourite).
  : Therein motion follows intent, leading to achievement. The same is to be found in all manner of "belief", IMHO.

  I suppose that's a truism, but I don't see that it does much for the ideas we're discussing.

  : I have no desire to argue the efficacy of Christ's blood, with you, if that framework does nothing for you. However to one who does find it gives them substance, I can discuss it till the cows come home. Is it real?

  I could argue similarly in favor of discussions of Flat-Earthism by its adherents.

  : What is real?

  That which is observable and/or produces actual effects in our universe or some other, I suppose.

  : How far do you go with that philosophical preoccupation? Are you real? Who IS the real AlanF? I've never met you, but I make certain assumptions (some of which may, or may not be true).

  People who meet me in person have no trouble with who the real AlanF is. What you see is what you get.

  : I only state that for the believer it is so...

  Just like for five-year-olds Santa Clause may be real.

  : Now that in no way puts me on the side of those who do (IMHO) totally irrational things with that belief, like running around claiming that homosexuals deserve AIDS, kill or shun their fellowman, and suchlike.

  True enough, but that does nothing about the many other Christians who, in the name of God and justified entirely by reference to the Bible, do those things. It's somewhat like Islam and terrorism. The Koran provides a basis for virtually everything that extremist Muslims do, while on the other hand the more reasonable Muslims either reject such teachings outright or ignore them. Much like nice Christians like you versus JWs and other fundamentalists.

  : To be honest, I don't even like some of the dogmatism and judgementalism that even theology can give rise to (as you will see from my arguments just this week, on this very thread). Nonetheless I enjoy discussing it.

  Well, I haven't read much on the board until today, so I can't comment.

  : Was that another near enough approximation to the JW-mindset and rationale, for you?

  Not even close.

  Seriously, I'm not trying to give you personally a hard time, but I do get a bit righteously bothered when I see attempts to justify beliefs that have proved so destructive to so many. Frankly, your comments here really don't come close to dealing with the points I and Terry made earlier in this thread, and I hope you understand that my sometimes tongue-in-cheek comments are designed to point this out. Your comments might make you feel good, but then, Santa Clause makes kids feel good, contemplating the 'reality' of a God-made flat earth makes Flat-Earthers feel good, Dianetics makes Scientologists feel good, and perhaps sacrificing chickens to Siva makes Hindus feel good. So what? Do you get my point about belief versus reality?

  AlanF
• 

  Deputy Dog

  AlenF

  God has no cause. But you're the one with all the answers. Why don't you tell us what your faith is based on. It sounds like you think you have something better. So tell us about your God or yourself, are they the same person?
• 

  Deputy Dog

  Seriously, I'm not trying to give you personally a hard time, but I do get a bit righteously bothered when I see attempts to justify beliefs that have proved so destructive to so many. Frankly, your comments here really don't come close to dealing with the points I and Terry made earlier in this thread, and I hope you understand that my sometimes tongue-in-cheek comments are designed to point this out. Your comments might make you feel good, but then, Santa Clause makes kids feel good, contemplating the 'reality' of a God-made flat earth makes Flat-Earthers feel good, Dianetics makes Scientologists feel good, and perhaps sacrificing chickens to Siva makes Hindus feel good. So what? Do you get my point about belief versus reality?

  Yea, your fallen nature makes you feel good.
• 

  ellderwho

  LT:

  For some, they work to the ethos of a deity. Since this "belief" helps them get through life, giving them purpose and assuaging certain fears and concerns, it simply works for them. If they desire to complicate it with further mental gymnastics, so be it.

  Yeah, someday I'll perfect that back-flip, triple twist, predestination thought.

  I tend to hold beliefs for which there is a substantial amount of actual evidence. I.e., ones that have at least a modicum of scientific basis.

  DDog to really have a firm foundation is to believe in things that have a lot of evidence or you can settle for just a little bit of evidence, see its that easy.

  edited to add, "a little bit of scientific evidence"

  E.
• 

  ellderwho

  Maybe the thread should read "freedom to choose your own God"
• 

  LittleToe

  Alan:
  I'm going to continue to be candid with you, even though I'm not certain that I'm truly getting the same in return. I believe that sometimes people are too busy constructing their counter-arguments, to actually listen to the soul of what the other is trying to impart. I used to do that regularly as a JW and became astonished when finally seeing it for what it was, in those final months in Field Service.

  Your analogies to Santa Claus (and pantheon) don't really do justice to your argument. They are old and worn, and whilst they might tackle some of the issues of fundamentalism, you already know that I don't lean that way. Besides, you are not talking to five-year-olds, here. You are talking to a group of mainly-compassionate (and passionate) adults. Condescension, along with sarcasm, does really win too many argumentation brownie points with me (other than for humour value ).

  And so; I would conject that all frameworks have a modicum of reality and a modicum of fiction within, even your own. Before you counter that, you might examine some of your own preconceptions and assumptions. Terry's post was, indeed, excellent. However we find even for the scientific-fundamentalist that there are issues such as DDog raised, such as how did the Big Bang occur. More importantly it doesn't even begin to touch on the "why?" of life, which is why we turn to philosophy and myth to plug some of the gaps.

  Some are content to use such as "placeholders" and temporary markers, whilst they continue to evolve. Others seem to stagnate .

  I'm going to throw in another theory, to highlight a potential scientific deficiency.
  I believe that the scientific evidence (that I've been able to review) doesn't actually point to a singularity as the start of the Universe, but rather a "donut of energy". The shape of the resultant galaxies, and their spread, is far more consistent with this view, in my belief.

  Now, if I could adequately quantify this with facts, after a while (working it's way against the current traditions and bastions of science - which [has been / is] a similar issue with new thought in theology) it might get accepted as established fact. You yourself would have to take a shift in thinking that may or may not be difficult (depending on how much you'd invested in your beliefs regarding the Big Bang), else maybe you'd not bother.

  My point being? Simply this (and I apologise for my verbosity); that each and every one of us has our beliefs about how the world is. There is a cost associated with that, and a continuous investment (even if we leave it fallow, as it becomes a vintage assumption).

  There may be more "baggage" with the addition of a deity, but it also simplifies things for the layperson, in that it's a single placeholder instead of many. If the mind is flexible enough, and as science progresses, that placeholder may continually get eroded. Nonetheless it is "big" enough, as a concept, to cover all the strange and as yet unexplained goings-on in the world.

  My question to you would be, why do you desire to destroy that, given that your ultimate truth isn't ultimate, either?

  : What is real?
  That which is observable and/or produces actual effects in our universe or some other, I suppose.

  Actually this response delights me, because it demonstrates an open mind. I wish that even half of my Christian friends would demonstrate the same...
  I would ask you to apply that to this very human fact. All of us base our beliefs on some scientific fact. What each feels is "substansive" enough for themselves, is up to the individual.

  I have to confess, being refered to as a "nice Christian", and compared to "the more reasonable muslims" doesn't really do much for me. It's probably akin to how you might feel being refered to as a "nice scientist-type chap" or one of "the more reasonable Big-Bangers". As for my comments not coming close to the response you desired, I'm afraid they are as close as I can come. I believe they addressed the essential issues, but if you feel otherwise I'd be more than happy to reappraise.

  But, I do believe that I get your point about belief verses reality. Do you get mine?
  Incidentally the analogy of Marital Arts was in connection with the "power" of belief.
  I've seen the difference between someone doing the moves, and someone doing them with "intent". The results are astounding, as can also be seen in spirituality vs mere religiosity.

  Getting back to the thread, do you feel free to choose "God"? Or are you disposed not to, based on your current level of understanding? If you'd dismissed such a notion, what is it that you've dismissed? Is it the concept of a creator, an invisible benefactor, an intelligent quantum energy, or something else? Which is the "God" that you feel you have refuted? Is that really "God", or just a "placeholder" that you feel you've achieved the demolition of? What IS this "God" that so many claim to believe in, yet so many do without?

  Just as another confession. I don't think there's a Christian alive who believes that the bible expresses all there is to know about "Bible-God" (Tm Farkel??). For those that commit travesties, I suspect we are in agreement that they are using a text in a way in which it wasn't designed (as per the early Christian ethos), hence it doesn't really make them a good example of Christianity, even if that mindest has been prevalent.

  I took a break from the board, of about 5-6 weeks, until about a couple of weeks ago. I don't think it'll take you much to catch up
  It's great to see you back, though!