If its good, God did it... if its bad Satan did it....

by Elsewhere 162 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  LittleToe

  Who?
• 

  Cicatrix

  "God doesn't expect loyalty, He deserves it though. Your ass is His."
  
  This ideology really cancels out "free will." How can you have true free will if you are punished with death/eternal torment/ separation from God's love, or whatever,if you choose a route other than the one God supposedly set forth in the Bible?
  
  Basically, there is no true "free will." You can choose to do everything God requires in acknowledgment that "Your ass is His," or you can die/suffer eternal torment/ be separated from God's love.
  
  So what if you don't want to follow God's rules as set forth in the Bible? Are you suffering the consequences of exercising your right to "free will" or are you being punished?
  
  To punish, as defined by Merriam Webster's Collegiate dictionary is:1.a: to impose a penalty for a fault, offense, or violation (b) to inflict a penalty for the commision of (an offense) in retribution or retaliation 2 a to deal with roughly or harshly (b) to inflict injury on: hurt
  
  punishment is: 1. The act of punishing 2 (a) suffering, pain, or loss that serves as retribution (b)a penalty inflicted on an offender through judicial procedure 3: severe, rough, or disasterous treatment.
  
  According to the scriptures, people who have purposely chosen not to serve God have suffered consequences (or punishments,depending on your outlook) and also people who have never served the God of the Bible have suffered consequences/punishments.
  
  Genesis 3:16 says "Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow ...
  
  The "he" is Jehovah, and "he" said "[I] (emphasis mine) will greatly multiply thy sorrow"
  
  So, to me, this fits the definition of punish because it's imposing a penalty for a violation, and it's a punishment because "greatly multiply[ing] thy sorrow is "suffering, pain, or loss that serves as retribution" and is a "penalty inflicted on an offender through judicial procedure."
  
  Eve was decieved, and she was punished by pain in childbirth, relationship problems, and by being prevented from eating from the second tree. Adam chose to partake of the fruit of the tree by exercising free will (evidentally, he wasn't deceived, but ate anyway when Eve encouraged him to), and he was punished by having to spend the rest of his life toiling outside the garden (and Eve got a quadruple whammy because she suffered this too), and by being prevented from partaking from the second tree.
  
  Both were prevented from eating of the second tree, about which Genesis 3:22 states "And the LORD GOD said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, [lest he put forth his hand and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever: 23 Therefore the LORD GOD sent him forth from the garden of Eden to till the ground from whence he was taken.](emphasis mine).
  
  Jehovah was the one who prevented the two from partaking of the second tree, which would have imparted eternal life to them. It was a direct intervention, according to the scriptures, NOT the natural outcome of a "consequence."
  
  The same precedence against free will carries over into the NT, if you take it literally. Jesus said "He that is not with me is against me." There really is no neutral position allowed.
  
  Why? Well, because "Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand."
  
  Back then, some of the folks were inclined toward worshipping goddesses and gods that were not Jehovah. There is a theme throughout the Bible of prophets and such denouncing this worship and tearing down the altars and sacramental poles and the like, and genocide being committed on nations of "unbelievers". What better way to promote this new faith over existing religions the followers of Jehovah felt were faulty, than to demonize the serpent (a sign of divinity to the worshippers of "foreign gods"), claim the serpent as their own when the first tactic didn't work (the wilderness incidence of the copper colored serpent, and Moses changing the staff into a big serpent that gobbled up the Egyptian priests little serpents) and to subjagate women in general (ever since Eve). And it wasn't just an OT problem. Chapter 17 and 18 of Acts show the rivalry pretty well, too.
• 

  undercover

  "God doesn't expect loyalty, He deserves it though. Your ass is His."
  
  This ideology really cancels out "free will." How can you have true free will if you are punished with death/eternal torment/ separation from God's love, or whatever,if you choose a route other than the one God supposedly set forth in the Bible?
  
  Basically, there is no true "free will." You can choose to do everything God requires in acknowledgment that "Your ass is His," or you can die/suffer eternal torment/ be separated from God's love.

  I posted this on another thread about why God allows wickedness:

  If God gave us free will, why is he setting man up to fail? That's not free will. That's like giving a condemned man freedom, but the rope is still around his neck. The further he tries to run, the more he chokes himself to death.
• 

  Cicatrix

  "Also, how do we know that Adam and Eve weren't forgiven?
  We know that they had actions and consequences (from the story) but why does that preclude them taking advantage of "grace"?"
  
  Good point, LT, but if "free will" were truly such, why would we need "grace" in the first place? This is what confuses the heck out of me!
  
  Also, why would God feel inclined to set up a test by putting the tree of knowledge and the tree of life in the garden in the first place? To me, that's akin to putting a cake on the table and telling your hungry three year old not to touch it:) Paul said that God doesn't need anything from humans, so why this need to test humans by demanding obedience?
• 

  Cicatrix

  Hi Undercover,
  Glad to see I'm not the only one who's confused about this:)
• 

  heathen

  The GOD of the bible is not depicted as a murderer he is depicted as a GOD of the living not of the dead . I think we find out in christianity especially that if we ignore what laws are there that mankind often becomes murderers . The laws of christianity teach people that we are to respect a persons right to exist even if they are the worst type of human immaginable .GOD himself reserves the right to judge and execute judgement .I did say GOD expects loyalty from his servants not that he expects it from the ignorant but you are right he clearly deserves it especially from those that understand and are aware of the circumstatances and his laws . He does bless those that love and live according to his statutes and curse those that reject them . IMO
• 

  undercover

  Glad to see I'm not the only one who's confused about this:)

  Actually, I'm not so much confused anymore as I am convinced. Convinced that the Bible is just a collection of stories and is not literal or factual.
• 

  Terry

  Perfection in Adam and Eve, as explained by the Watchtower, has a special connotation. It implies they had no flaw or imperfection of any sort. They were as good as the Supreme Being could make them without any tendency toward a wrong step.

  This is clearly refuted by the utter inability of Adam and Eve (as far as the story goes. I don't happen to regard the story as true events with real people) to pass even one test of integrity.

  All things, people included, act according to their nature. Just as apple trees do not produce pears; so too, perfect humans do not do imperfect things. It is a self-refuting definition.

  Can you imagine a circle that is not round? The very roundness ensures the circle of the nature of its' being. A circle has one foci. An elipse has two. Adam and Eve were only as perfect as their actions evidenced.

  I take issue with the Watchtower Society's use of the word "perfect".

  As far as being forgiven? What is the point?

  I go back to my analogy of the first two rabbits in your new hutch. If they are sick and diseased and YOU STILL ALLOW THEM TO MATE; it is you who are responsible for the sick rabbit generations that follow. By not getting the first two rabbits medical attention you are deliberately passing the disease on to all the rabbits that follow. If that disease leads to death; then, you are killing all the rabbits that follow by your inaction and inattention to the medical treatment necessary BEFORE the act.

  That is the fault I find with this God that walks around in Eden in the breezy part of the day. This God does not care if Adam and Eve pass the disease on to billions of offspring. Why? Because he'd rather demonstrate his Munchausen by Proxy syndrome, that's why.

  Munchausen by Proxy Syndrome
  

  Munchausen by proxy syndrome (MBPS) is one of the most harmful forms of child abuse. It is also perplexing. MBPS involves an apparent deeply caring mother/father who repeatedly fabricates symptoms or provokes actual illnesses in her helpless infant or child. MBPS was first described in 1977 by Meadow; since then more than 200 MBPS related articles have appeared, the majority being case descriptions. Understanding the dynamics of this disorder is of utmost importance because growing evidence indicates that it is more common than previously believed and it is devastating if not fatal for the children and infants. It is also important to mention the effects MBPS has on others who become involved in this cases, particularly nurses and physicians.

  Maybe the most important aspect of this syndrome is the immense ability of the mother/father to fool doctors and the susceptibility of physicians to her manipulations. The hospital, which is the most common setting for MBPS cases, is where as much as 75% of the MBPS-related morbidity occurs as a consequence of attempts by physicians to diagnose and treat the affected child or infant. More than 98% of MBPS cases involve female perpetrators. Even the most experienced pediatricians often miss evident clues left by these parents.
• 

  LittleToe

  Cicatrix:
  Who said it was a test?
  That would be contrary to scripture (James 1:13).

  Under the Christian framework "grace" would surely be necessary to allow "free will" to work the other way too, wouldn't it?
  Try substituting "Christ" for "tree of life", in the Genesis account, and see if that does anything for you, regarding the concept of grace over works.

  It's good to question our preconceptions, especially when they've been given us by the WTS.
• 

  Valis

  I always wondered why Jehover would let Satan into his perfect garden...Also where was that big twirling sword when Satan snuck in and started in on Eve?

  Sincerely,

  District Overbeer