James,
Please deal with the information in the article from Greg Koukl.....I gave you my opinion and just like yours, everyone has one.
Rex
Donald Duck and Jehovah (from the book "Jehovah Unmasked")
by JamesThomas 55 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
Shining One
-
upside/down
One of my favorite posters....doing his "thang"...
I thoroughly enjoyed that aprapoe analogy.
u/d
-
tetrapod.sapien
JT,
ha ha! brilliant! great to have you back at the board. i'll never forget that analogy. i am going to look up this jehovah unmasked book.
Rex,
{inserts picture of Corky}
Regards,
TS
-
kid-A
However, what about the rule thou shalt not kill? That's a different kind of rule. That is a rule that applies to human beings because the taking and giving of life is not our prerogative so it is immoral for us to do that. But the taking and giving of life is God's prerogative, so it is not immoral for Him to exercise the same thing. He can give and take life at His whim, if that's what it amounts to, because He is God.
What a sickening, disgusting load of rotting TRIPE. Wow, what brilliant logic! god can do what he wants because.......(drum-roll please!!!) HE IS GOD!!!!!! Holy Be-Geezus its all so clear to me now!!! god can kill at his whim because it his PREROGATIVE !!! It would require profound brain damage to accept the moral absurdity of this pitiful excuse of an apology!!
Is that the best you've got?????? Essentially what this nonsense amounts to, is the "group think" of brain-washed masses worshipping a dictator....how pitiful.....
-
roybatty
God - the ultimate "do as I say, not as I do"
-
Narkissos
Interesting read indeed (thus far).
Fwiw, I think that the "Donald Duck" character of the Jewish-Christian "God" is easily understandable from a historical perspective. Because he is a god who became God.
Many of the Yahwistic stories were elaborated in a polytheistic context: there Yhwh was not "God" but one god among many. Not the Creator of heavens and earth but one of the sons of the supreme god El -- the patron deity of Israel, period. He had no power on other nations. Even his power on his own people was limited. He could not punish his people as he wished and so had to resort to tricks to make his people guilty before his divine hierarchy (the first story of David's census in 2 Samuel 24 is a good example, and it is noteworthy that at a later stage 1 Chronicles 21 has to put "Satan" instead of "Yhwh"). He was jealous of other gods, simply because there were other gods.
When Yahweh became the only god worthy of worship (henotheism) and was increasingly assimilated with El, and later on when he was left really alone and became "God" (monotheism), all of this became very embarrassing. On the one hand Yhwh learnt to behave somewhat (the older stories were reinterpreted in a smoother and more universalistic way), but on the other hand all of his claims sounded all the more arbitrary. New problems appeared as the result of this mutation: e.g. it was very natural for Yhwh to be Israel's god as Kamosh was Moab's god or Marduk Babylon's; but why the only God would choose one people among all was a completely different question.
Like it or not, this is part of the history of the word "God". Even God cannot erase his historical footprints. Just reinterpret them. As the exclusivism becomes less apparent it is all the more scandalous. Yet it remains engraved in the very structure of monotheistic thought.
God needs to outgrow God and cannot outgrow God...
Shining One,
Every time you say "God is right" you are caught in the basic logical apory of monotheism:
Either (1) "right" refers to an idea of justice which is superior to God and then God is not God anymore; or (2) there is no "right" apart from what God says is right and then the assertion is completely meaningless.
You choose.
-
poppers
James, it's always a pleasure to read your posts. Your way of expressing reflects a "knowing" of things which cannot be put into words, but which can be intuitively felt as true. Rather than rely on someone else's writing/ideas your words come from a direct realization I am sure. If only others would directly investigate for themselves, as you have, and not cling to hand-me-down religion/ideas they too could escape from limited beliefs. Keep posting those illuminating thoughts, and those that have eyes to see and ears to hear may venture beyond their own timeworn hand-me-down beliefs into something truly spectacular.
poppers -
Terry
Can God create something and then destroy what He's created
All of Shining One's argument devolves on the issue of POWER.
The strong can dominate the weak and the most POWER is reserved for this "God" entity.
Shining One uses the preferred word: prerogative. But, that word doesn't address the source of the empowerment of reserving something for one's self alone.
The power to crush is the power to stop. What is a bully, after all? One who wields power on whim to the detriment of any who oppose his capricious will.
The history of the world is a power struggle. The stronger sex has dominated the weaker sex and, embarrassed at having been so blatant about it, points to "God's Will" in the matter as the excuse. But, it is raw power and nothing less.
The nation with the mighty army dictates to the weaker nation with impunity. The governance of a social group stems in the final analysis on the force of the rule of law by arms. The death penalty is wielded as a power reserved unto the court through a due process according to a written constitution.
But, be that as it may....GOD as concept is the ultimate willingness to wield power and disavow the culpability. God made me do it. He alone can make me do it and leave my hands clean of responsibility. Why? Ummm, well, he's GOD!
Not much of an answer when you get right down to it.
There are a few circumstances where He delegates that power to us, specifically in my view, capital punishment. We know this intuitively, folks, because when men seek to make life and death decisions for others, what do we tell them? We say, ;It's not right for you to 'play God.'" Well, of course it's not right for man to play God, but it implies that it is right for God to play God , and that's my point
This is the preening nonsense of an argument in circularity. For one thing, Shining One takes the dodge of Mystical "intuition", which he cannot define, but, merely asserts as the SOURCE of our "knowing". Pure B.S. as all mystical authority stems from unprovable premises merely asserted as "inborn".
...what about the rule thou shalt not kill? ... That is a rule that applies to human beings because the taking and giving of life is not our prerogative so it is immoral for us to do that. But the taking and giving of life is God's prerogative, so it is not immoral for Him to exercise the same thing.
Circular argument again. Humans should not kill. Why? Because God said so. It is okay for God to kill. Why? Because He can and we can't. Silly stuff. It contains no information and only bare bones assertions.
The thing missing from this statement is the faintest understanding of MORAL really is! Shining One seems to think that something is MORAL if God does it or commands it and that is all there is to it. But, this madness is demonstrably an error.
THE STANDARD OF MORALITY IS MAN'S LIFE ITSELF. But, religious belief turns this upside down and makes man's life without purpose EXCEPT AS A SLAVE of the WILL of others who purport to represent GOD.
You will never find yourself serving God. You will only find yourself obeying whims of men who CLAIM to speak for God. These crimes against humanity are committed by humanity under the banner of heaven's will. It is a smokescreen to say "God has willed this". It relieves men of the burden of having purposefully contrived the destruction of others. That is the abandonment of morality in the name of a phoney "morality".
Shining One says:
God is the author of life, therefore He has the prerogative to take life whenever He wants. That is His prerogative. It is only immoral when human beings exercise prerogatives that are not theirs, that are God's alone.
You'll only see God's hand puppets taking life in his Name. The invisibleness of this vapor of an entity (God) is a clue as to who really does the dirty work.
The representations of an historical GOD who crushes men under his will is an illusion of man's mind. GOD is the delusional construct of men who do not take responsibility for their own actions and wish to paint a pretty role for themselves as mere servants.
Shining One seeks to escape responsibility by excusing God. But, the God he excuses is his own illusion and serves his purpose well.
God is our alter-ego projected outward and hidden invisibly by rhetorical fallacy.
We alone make our lives what they are. Our morality is measured by how we advance humanity and create nobility of purpose in our deeds. The opposite of that is to crush and destroy under the banner of an invisible "other".
It is responsibility that makes us human. The injection of "God" into any argument is to abandon morality and escape responsibility.
T.
-
JamesThomas
James,
Please deal with the information in the article from Greg Koukl.....Dear Rex,
I feel I have already dealt with it. Every word out of Greg's mouth is his definition of a murderous idea of a god and it's functioning. We need look no further than this forum to see the psychological harm such hostile and dangerous concepts of the Divine can cause. Concepts I have already expressed my feelings on.
There are far more beautiful, immediate and vibrantly alive ways to embrace our true-essence that unites all within Itself; why settle for less? I don't know what else to say Rex.
j
-
Shining One
Hi James,
>I feel I have already dealt with it. Every word out of Greg's mouth ;is his definition of a murderous idea of a god ;and it's functioning.
I don't see that at all. You have asserted something and you do not seem willing to prove it.
>We need look no further than this forum to see the psychological harm such hostile and dangerous concepts of the Divine can cause. Concepts I have already expressed my feelings on.
We need to look at each individual in this forum and see what kind of an environment they were raised in first, then we may be able to start to determine what their various problems are. Next, we need to remember that the majority here have been victims of a cult and not simply, 'fundamentalist Christians'. You are painting all with a wide brush and that is exactly what the simplistic post we are talking about does. Hence, that is my immediate objection to it.
A person's pyschological state is irrelevant to the question you raise about the scriptures themselves. You claim a cause and effect that you simply cannot prove. Then you resort to an appeal to pity.
>There are far more beautiful, immediate and vibrantly alive ways ;to embrace our true-essence that unites all within Itself; why settle for less? ;I don't know what else to say Rex.
You obviously don't know what to say. You can fool yourself with ideas that give you comfort but are they factual in the light of eternity?
Rex
