Dave, you'll shoot your eye out!
AuldSoul
JoinedPosts by AuldSoul
-
-
-
-
49
State A Simple Opinion About JWD Members
by nicolaou inwe share a common past but have travelled many different roads to find each other here.
our outlooks and perceptions of reality are varied and often fascinating.
most of us are encouraging, funny, helpful and kind while others are still wrapped in bitterness and hatred or suffering from despair and privation.
-
-
AuldSoul
kurtbethel, Just one thing to say, "Malcolm Reynolds."
We are an eclectic mix of castaways and rescuers, some of whom made landfall, either struggling to stay above water or seeking out those who've braved the comforts of the open ocean rather than to cling to an anchored hull of flotsam that never was a seaworthy vessel.
-
384
A STUNNINGLY simple question about JOHN 3:16 "For God so Loved the world."
by Terry inon what basis did god so love the world?.
the world of mankind had been condemned to death by god's curse in eden!.
god viewed mankind as "dust on the scales".
-
-
AuldSoul
Terry: The barber who cuts the hair of all people who don't cut their own hair. Can he cut his own hair?
Yes, he can.
The barber who ONLY cuts the hair of people who don't cut their own hair cannot cut his own hair. But a barber cutting the hair of people who don't cut their own hair does not preclude that barber from ALSO cutting his own hair. As can all individuals in the real world—where cold logic doesn't usually prevail—the barber can belong to more than one set. Can't he, Terry?
For your sake, I so wish you could categorize and box up neatly everyone and everything; but it is the nature of reality that its constituents are not so easily taxonomized into single sets.
—AuldSoul
-
384
A STUNNINGLY simple question about JOHN 3:16 "For God so Loved the world."
by Terry inon what basis did god so love the world?.
the world of mankind had been condemned to death by god's curse in eden!.
god viewed mankind as "dust on the scales".
-
-
AuldSoul
Where could He possibly Justify (in the Judicial sense) letting off the wicked and excusing their crime?
That IS my question, after all!Oh. I was confused, I suppose. If this was, in fact, your original question, it was buried under an enormity of other issues which have little or nothing to do with the question you are actually asking. I thought your question must have been one of these:
On what basis did GOD SO LOVE the world? On what values contained by man, the sinner?
What possibly JUST cause is there for God to LOVE what is repugnant to him?
I ask again. ON WHAT BASIS can God be said to "LOVE THE WORLD"?
Man is the sinner and does NOT pay. Jesus is perfect and sinless and DOES pay. JUSTICE? How? LOVE? On what basis?
This new question is easy to explain. The verse you at first quote correctly holds the seed of understanding the answer to your question, if, in fact, you have narrowed your question down to this new one. God loved the world of mankind enough to pay for our sins. You ask, "Where could He possibly Justify (in the Judicial sense) letting off the wicked and excusing their crime?" The answer is, He couldn't, and the Bible never suggests that he could or did. The crimes had to be paid for.
I'm sure you already know how the Bible says those crimes were paid for. Now, if your REAL question is in that jumble of poorly based, maundering questions you asked in your opening post, you need to firm your questions up a bit to get them answered. In the opening post you seem to be blathering against the concept of a loving or just God and appear to be disproving the possibility even as you ask (presumably believers) whether such love and justice is possible.
Since you wish to use the analogy of human courts, does the responsible party always pay? If not, your analogy can be used to demonstrate the answer to your question just as easily as to demonstrate your dilema. For instance, if my young, inexperienced child damages someone's property, who pays for it? Is that just or fair?
Your questions only make sense from the perspective of a cynical critic. You asserted an initial fallacious framework of thought within which your pejorative questions seem reasonable.
It is just and merciful for God to determine what is a reasonable price for the damage done to his property and demand payment of that price. It is supremely merciful and loving for Jesus to willingly choose to pay the price and become our debt-holder, only to release us from obligation to that debt (as the only one who could do so) because of his fondness for us and his desire to see us achieve our potential.
Where the price has been paid in sufficient amount to cover all damages in perpetuity, there is no more injustice in excusing the criminal or the crime and clemency (mercy) can, from that time onward, always be granted on that basis at the judge's discretion. From that time onward there is no longer any grounds on which to question whether the judge should or should not grant clemency in any specific instance.
Now, if that IS your question, I hope I answered it fully. If you have a different question than the one about which you so recently wrote: "That IS my question, after all!" please clarify that question separately.
—AuldSoul
-
7
Please help ASAP....UN question reguarding the ESCSOC
by middleman inhey yall i have a question that i'm quite curious of.
it says in the 2005 un accreditation form "in 2002 we instituted the review process for ngos associated with dpi".
now on the un website it says "resolution e/1996/31 adopted in july 1996 to replace resolution 1296 of may 1968 rules the current arrangements for consultation with non-governmental organizations.
-
-
AuldSoul
The "review process" refers to a process of Committee review to determine whether the Associate member organizations are fulfilling their end of the membership agreements. Prior to this formal review process it was relatively easy to retain Associate status once that status was gained, so long as filing was timely of requested materials demonstrating active publishing and distribution of information regarding the UN, its activities, and objectives.
The application process, itself, was none too easy in 1991, however. They applied in late November of 1991 and were not approved as an Associate member of the UN/DPI until February of 1992. They retained this membership to the UN/DPI until October of 2001.
Concerning those who renounced their Christian faith in his day, the apostle John wrote: "They went out from us, but they were not of our sort; for if they had been of our sort, they would have remained with us." (1 John 2:19) For example, a person might renounce his place in the Christian congregation by his actions, such as by becoming part of a secular organization that has objectives contrary to the Bible and, hence, is under judgment by Jehovah God. (Isa. 2:4; Rev. 19:17-21) If a person who is a Christian chooses to join those who are disapproved by God, a brief announcement is made to the congregation, stating: "[Name of person] is no longer one of Jehovah’s Witnesses." Such a person is treated in the same way as a disfellowshipped person. The presiding overseer should approve this announcement. (Organized to Do Jehovah's Will, p. 155, par. 2)
So, really, this only leaves two questions:
(1) Is the UN/DPI a secular (i.e., non-religious) organization?
(2) According to Jehovah's Witnesses, is the UN/DPI under judgment by Jehovah God?
In my opinion, the reasons why they applied to join the UN/DPI and then maintained that Associate membership for ten years are unimportant. The fact is that they chose to join those they themselves labeled "disapproved by God" and, in doing so, they held themselves to a different standard than they hold those they presume to teach.
Respectfully,
AuldSoul -
7
Please help ASAP....UN question reguarding the ESCSOC
by middleman inhey yall i have a question that i'm quite curious of.
it says in the 2005 un accreditation form "in 2002 we instituted the review process for ngos associated with dpi".
now on the un website it says "resolution e/1996/31 adopted in july 1996 to replace resolution 1296 of may 1968 rules the current arrangements for consultation with non-governmental organizations.
-
-
AuldSoul
Middleman,
ECOSOC was the first UN Section that ever allowed Non-Governmental Organizations to have any sort of Associate membership status to it. In the resolution that allowed ECOSOC to permit NGOs to become Associate members of taht section, general quidelines were set forth that would apply, as a minimum requirement, to all sections that later premitted NGOs (like the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society or the United Health Organization) to become Associate members.
Unlike ECOSOC, the Department of Public Information (DPI) section reports directly to the General Secretary of the UN. Its criteria has, as its minimum, the criteria required for all sections. It also established criteria peculiar to the interests and aims of the DPI section, especially related to the applicant organization's demonstrated ability and willingness to communicate to a broad audience about the activities, objectives, and progams of the United Nations.
I hope that proves helpful to you.
Respectfully,
AuldSoul -
-
-
AuldSoul
Belts will be worn tighter, this year.
-
384
A STUNNINGLY simple question about JOHN 3:16 "For God so Loved the world."
by Terry inon what basis did god so love the world?.
the world of mankind had been condemned to death by god's curse in eden!.
god viewed mankind as "dust on the scales".
-
-
AuldSoul
hamilcarr: Since cooperation apparently raises our species' fitness, I would affirmatively claim larger spheres are better .
Cooperation also improves our ability to destroy our environment and our capacity for self-destruction. Spheres of cooperation expanded more rapidly than adaptation rates (to the rapid societal evolution) can accomodate makes self-destructive incidents or even incidents destructive to the species much more likely.
Charisma can bend cooperative humans to almost any task, provided the moralistic considerations are properly framed. If extraspecial evolution is correct then good and bad are beliefs, even if such are instinctive beliefs . . . not realities. Without knowing the eventual outcomes of our choices the judgment of what is good and what is bad is purely subjective.
Consider this: Should Hitler have been killed as a baby?
Millions of Jews would have been spared a horror that should never have been visited on anyone, ever. But the example of Hitler and our guardedness against ever allowing something like that to occur again has possibly helped prevent far worse genocides and atrocities that might have otherwise occurred. Had Hitler died as a baby those six million and more Jews would have been spared and perhaps our entire species would have later been extinguished, or several nations of people.
Should Hitler have been killed as a baby?
I don't know whether that would have been good or bad and neither do you, neither does any other human. We cannot ever know whether any choice we make or fail to make will produce a net cost to our species or a net gain to our species specifically because we do not know the long-term effects of any of our choices.
Therefore, unless something can speak on the matter from a perspective that is less limited than the human perspective, morals are a figment of chance. They don't actually exist.
Respectfully,
AuldSoul -
384
A STUNNINGLY simple question about JOHN 3:16 "For God so Loved the world."
by Terry inon what basis did god so love the world?.
the world of mankind had been condemned to death by god's curse in eden!.
god viewed mankind as "dust on the scales".
-
-
AuldSoul
My point was not an attempt to reach a conclusion, Trevor. My point was to demonstrate that those who choose to conclude that there was a Creator are not necessarily left with the question of the origin of the Creator because all life need not follow the observable and testable rules of carbon-based life simply because that is the sort of life we can most easily examine. When it comes to direct examination of all other sorts of life we are currently blind, so those particular squirrels may as well be elves.
I am not offering conclusions, either. Apart from stating our ignorance of the precise nature of God—a statement I feel confident we agree on—I was asking questions.
Respectfully,
AuldSoul -
384
A STUNNINGLY simple question about JOHN 3:16 "For God so Loved the world."
by Terry inon what basis did god so love the world?.
the world of mankind had been condemned to death by god's curse in eden!.
god viewed mankind as "dust on the scales".
-
-
AuldSoul
Trevor: We can observed the natural world we live in and conclude there must have been a creator as life does not come from non life. Leaving us with the dilemma of where the creator came from. Or we may adopt evolution as the answer.
This is a deceptively false premise I have been handed many times before. I understand why people are fooled by it so easily.
No carbon-based life arises from non-life. If the Creator is carbon-based then we must answer the question of the Creator's origin. As to any variety of life other than carbon-based, we know nothing at all of its nature. Doesn't that frame the problem more realistically, when we admit the distinct limitations of our own perceptions?
If the Creator is not carbon-based then the Creator is outside the bounds of what we readily identify as and have labeled as 'life'. Isn't that so? Since we have never examined such a lifeform we know nothing about what we can reasonably assume regarding it. Had you ever thought about that before?
Respectfully,
AuldSoul
