Posts by AuldSoul

384

A STUNNINGLY simple question about JOHN 3:16 "For God so Loved the world."

by Terry in

on 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: I don't really buy that idea that we are taking up temporary housing in our skin.

You also don't really buy the idea of a personal unseen God.

Your "STUNNINGLY simple question" is neither stunning, nor simple. I highly suspect you only asked in order to make several statements in response to anyone who dared reply.

Your blathering reply smacked of the Chewbacca 'irrationale' in its complete non-response to anything in my post. You seemed like you went off on a Stewie Griffin rant.

Stewie Griffin: [Oh, right. Like] every baby born in America has a potential to be President. Is that it? In God's eyes we are all the Adam that never was? [Is that it, Brian? Hm?] If you bring enough pestilences, floods and curses along you certainly scourge the hull a bit and leave the---um--what's left? The spirit? What good is a spirit once the man is scourged? The spirit isn't man[, is it Brian?]

Terry: The process is so....wastefull...petty.....arbitrary and....(you fill in the blank).

Here is where your perspective limits you again. 'Wasteful' and 'petty' are subjective terms requiring you to first know things you don't know. You would have to know what the eventual cost to benefit would be to the species in order to determine whether the process described in the Bible is wasteful. You would have to know the importance on a scale and scope beyond your ability to comprehend in order to determine whether the process is petty. Yet, you authoritatively throw these subjective judgments around about a being you don't believe to exist. You even seem to believe your doing so is rational, somehow.

As to your characterization of the process being arbitrary, I agree completely. If God is as the Bible describes, then God is an absolute authority. God gets to make arbitrary decisions.

How can you pretend to genuinely be curious about the questions you raise in this thread? You have weighed and judged God as a figment some time ago.

I never said God saves the potential of man. I said he loves, cherishes, and values the potential of man. Obfuscate much?

384

A STUNNINGLY simple question about JOHN 3:16 "For God so Loved the world."

by Terry in

on 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

{duplicate}

65

Could it happen here?

by BurnTheShips in

jw
friends

this thread, and others like it, got me thinking that, if this board is representative of society, there is definitely an anti-theist wind blowing in western nations, much more so in europe than here in the united states.

could it happen here as it happened there?.

from edward j. derwinski "religious persecution in the soviet union - transcript".

AuldSoul

I would caution against equating anti-organized religion with anti-theism. Richard Dawkins and the like only attack beliefs with words. I think we are a long way from Dawkin's perspectives on reality producing legislation to impose those perspectives on pain of punishment.

I do not believe theism is at any risk of dying out or becoming illegal here. I do believe anti-Islam sentiments will produce something soon, but I sincerely doubt it will take the form of outlawing organized religion, much less outlawing theism.

Respectfully,
AuldSoul

33

Did Jehovah's Witnesses ever claim they were inspired?

by slimboyfat in

jehovah's witnesses insist they are not false prophets despite making false predictions because they never claimed inspiration.

but is that true?

well most of the time they seem to have been careful only to claim divine "guidance" or that they are "god's channel".

AuldSoul

The article does state that the Divine Plan was revealed to them. Revelation is by inspiration, alone.

If this isn't an embarrassment to them, it should be. Just imagine . . . EVERY SINGLE PERSON who put confident, trusting faith in those words of utterly false hope is now completely dead. Not just mostly dead, like the Dread Pirate Roberts was—completely dead. So are all the ones who didn't put trust in that message of falsehoods in which they "made others to hope" and "lying divinations."

Why would anyone believe what that religion says about anything, with such an atrocious track record of certain failure in predictions?

33

Did Jehovah's Witnesses ever claim they were inspired?

by slimboyfat in

jehovah's witnesses insist they are not false prophets despite making false predictions because they never claimed inspiration.

but is that true?

well most of the time they seem to have been careful only to claim divine "guidance" or that they are "god's channel".

AuldSoul

Zion's Watchtower and Herald of Christ's Presence—July 15, 1894

alt

So, I read the January 15, 1892 article and found triply damning statements within, along with all sorts of completely wrong pseudo-prophetic babblings, including a directly stated claim that the end would be prior to 1915, doubly confirmed by adding "—that is, within the next twenty-three years."

alt

Check out the explicit statements in the fourth paragraph: "All this, the Scriptures show us, is to come to pass before 1915 (See MILLENIAL DAWN, Vol. II., Chapter IV.)—that is, within the next twenty-three years."

The balance goes on to make the case, somewhat, but is more an appeal to readers that they should trust the messenger and to the messengers that they should trust the source, which is not mere men. I guess this article makes a pretty clear statement about how the communication happens, right? "Oracles of God", and "Thus saith the Lord"? In my opinion, it is impossible to argue that they weren't told to speak this Divine Plan of the Ages in God's name.

Respectfully,
AuldSoul

29

Why was the "Manking Search For God" publication never a study book?

by truthseeker in

jw
friends

any takers?.

i'm guessing it's because people might get too curious when covering the material and wonder about different religions..

AuldSoul

sir82,

Your recollection is correct. The Talk #1 series was given from three chapters at a time with no question and answers. For obvious reasons. I clearly recall the more uncomfortable points being glossed over routinely.

Respectfully,
AuldSoul

29

Why was the "Manking Search For God" publication never a study book?

by truthseeker in

jw
friends

any takers?.

i'm guessing it's because people might get too curious when covering the material and wonder about different religions..

AuldSoul

Mankind's Search for God was never used in the Congregation Book Study. This can be verified by searching the Watchtower Library CD-ROM for the schedule of the study for that publication.

It was "covered" in the February 1998 Kingdom Ministry more thoroughly than during any other formal meeting of Jehovah's Witnesses.

I believe the book was never studied in the CBS because it was not designed for Jehovah's Witnesses and did not reinforce JW propaganda to the degree desirable during a Congregation Book Study. It was very kindly toward a good many religions. Its opening chapters freely compare the Bible accounts of origin and early man to the contemporary prevalent myths of the Ancient Sumerians. It discusses the philosophy behind the world's major religions freely.

In short, it is a book that could easily make a JW start thinking about their own religion in a less favorable or less singular light.

Respectfully,
AuldSoul

63

3 a.m. - my wife is in tears! What do I do?

by The Scotsman in

jw
friends

well my situation has developed a bit, any advice appreciated.. their has been a gradual building up of pressure ever since i stood down as an elder about 6 months ago.. i have been telling my wife about my doubts but have continued to attend "some" meetings.. as time has progressed i have become more open with my criticism of the org.. i mentioned the un scandal, molestation trials, false prophecy ect etc.. interestingly she does not deny these facts and yet still wants to continue as a jw.. i told her that god is not happy with people knowingly being part of a false prophet (deut 18 - etc) - starting to lay the groundwork for my exit.. she appreciates the difficult situation doubters are in - they cannot openly express their feelings for fear of jcs.. anyway, a few weeks ago we moved house which meant changing congregation.. but i felt it would be best if i did not attend meetings " at all" at the new cong so my fade could be easier.. but i could not have predicted my wifes response - when i told her it was an explosion of emotion, i mean real heartbreaker stuff.. she seems depressed at the prospect, perhaps the reality is finally hitting home.. last night, about 3a.m.

i noticed that she was not in bed.

i went downstairs and she was sobbing away to herself.. "i can't go to that hall myself!

AuldSoul

Scotsman,

I have been out for two years and a little more. My wife remains a JW. On May 24 we will have been married 10 years. This past Sunday, she went to the meeting. The Sunday prior, we got up and she said, "I think I want to go to Hershey Park today." That's a local amusement park. I said, "Okay. We could do a picnic lunch and a movie after, if you like." She said that would be nice.

We enjoyed a beautiful day with beautiful weather together as a couple. Days she goes to the meeting, she gets no comments from me about it. Days when she doesn't go, she gets no comments from me about it. I actively make her religious choices a non-issue in our marriage. JWs want the religion to be ever so very important, just as the Jews in Jesus' day thought of themselves as ever so important on the world scene. Demonstrating, through nonchalance, how utterly meaningless and unimportant the religion is may be all she needs.

Respectfully,
AuldSoul

384

A STUNNINGLY simple question about JOHN 3:16 "For God so Loved the world."

by Terry in

on 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: Love follows the thing loved. To love man is to follow the value of man to its logical conclusion. To love a man who possesses no inherent value is to destroy the value of love itself because it would be based on a mere nothing.

Once more you except potential value from your equation. What a man is and what a man might be are not one and the same. It is entirely possible to love intensely what a man might be and at the same moment despise intensely what a man is.

Is that not true? Is a man's potential "mere nothing" if one possesses the ability and insight to unleash said potential in another?

I agree that God is not encumbered as man is, simply because God is not limited to our capabilities and bound to our perceptions. These are not laws God made for all of reality, these are our bindings, our limitations. God constrains himself, but he is of a different nature than man. You don't like that, since it puts God outside your capacity to fairly judge, but that is the way it is.

If you believe in the God of the Bible, you also accept that this God does not answer to you and that your ability to perceive is limited to the perspective of a single human mind which cannot possibly encompass that which you seek to judge, much less judge God fairly.

But, you don't suffer such belief, do you Terry? So, why would anyone waste their time trying to open your eyes or answer within your peevish, unreasonable constraints? Could it be that we would-be answerers choose to endure your insults out of a hopeful love for your potential value, given the obvious current lack of basis? I think so.

Is that an injustice? Perhaps in your mind, it is. Poor thing.

—AuldSoul

384

A STUNNINGLY simple question about JOHN 3:16 "For God so Loved the world."

by Terry in

on 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: To love is to place the highest possible value on.

Well, at last. After all the bards have failed for millenia, of all people, you, Terry, have defined love! Thank you. The universe, and indeed myself as a part of it, owes you a debt of gratitude.

Cannot someone love something that COULD be, rather than something that currently is? Cannot someone love an idea or a potential reality so much that they are willing to sacrifice for the mere hope of it? Is it then possible to love the possible even while despising and being dismally disappointed in the current reality?

If so, I fail to see your point entirely. If not, I think reality bears out many exceptions to your peculiar sort of blindness. The Bible sets forth exactly that as the explanation for God's apparent dual dealing with mankind. Does it not?

I think you wish to insist that there be cause for love when love does not ever necessarily find basis on anything external to the person who chooses to express it. Their choice can be "based" on nothing more substantial than a hope. However, in this case, the Bible explains that God knew some would become worthy of that love—that is, that there would eventually be a basis for that love.

I don't see dissonance in God's regretful distaste for what humanity has done and has become expressed right alongside love of what they might do, what they might be. Weekly, I see many, many examples of similar love from parents expressed toward miscreant children that they hope to correct.

I see dissonance in your body of posts on this forum. I see a confused and bitter man trying to set rational parameters and a precise framework for the "appropriate" expression of an emotion. Who ever made you arbiter of the "appropriateness" of love? You are free to judge whether you believe the judge has judged fairly, has shown mercy appropriately, has loved wisely . . . but in this case you disavow the judge prior to rendering your verdict and would base your verdict, in part, on your judgment of the nonexistent judge.

See the circularity of logic? If you can't see the clash—you shouldn't blather such questions. You might invite inspection of whether your premise is well founded. In this case, it is grossly lacking. Love is not so constrained as you would have it be.

—AuldSoul