"If God was a human he'd be put in prison for criminal neglect."
An example of the relationship between two humans is of two beings on the same
level of being, and a human can't claim to have provided the world and all life
therefore God's prerogative about it all. The relationship between two humans
isn't the concept of a human relationship to God, which is why I made the
analogy.
Most people, whether they believe in God or not, disapprove of a human parent
neglectful of their human child, but they don't have all the same reactions to a
human's regard of an animal in one direction and it doesn't make a case for what
a human has to consider about God in the other direction. The person with the
more optimistic view, whether they believe in God or not, doesn't have an opti-
mism for the absolute neglect of the neglectful human who leaves their child to
die but for what good to find in what was provided.
"Do you think it would be fair of them to assume that there was no rancher?"
The concept is of a possible God beyond the see-able, touchable world, neither
proven nor disproven, so it's fair game to see you have a choice to believe in
Him as an article of faith or not. It would be a forced point to say that the
concept of God has to be disbelieved because it doesn't take into account the
suffering in the world. That would be effective in refuting a concept of an
all-beneficent God.
"But for some people, life does suck. What’s wrong with acknowledging that?
Why does it have to be likened to pledging allegiance to Satan? (I hope I’m un-
derstanding your illustration properly here)."
No. That a believer or non-believer can acknowledge the same hardships as
happening is part of my point. It therefore couldn't force a case that to do
so would be wrong. Whether you take the story of Job literally or figuratively
for theological teaching, it's the Devil who forces the case that acknowledging
the hardships will require someone to not believe in God.
"But I don’t think the outlook of the 'glass half empty' vs 'glass half full'
cows has anything to do with whether they believe in the (as yet unseen)
rancher. They might just be optimistic or pessimistic cows."
That's already assumed in the example. Both see the same human suffering in
the world. The more optimistic view is to be glad for your shot at life and
what good you found in it, so if you add God (like Job), you believe in God like
that verses belief in God hinging on a concept of an all-beneficent world/God.
"Are you saying that if life wasn’t filled with suffering, then all of the
cows would be optimistic? That’s a good thing, isn’t it though? I’d rather
have a field of happy, problem-free cows than a bovine bloodbath."
I didn't wonder if both believers and non-believers would prefer an all-bene-
ficent world because I assume we'd all prefer one. But to be credible, your God
concept has to be reconciled with the real world, one with the same hardships
whether you believe in God or not, and belief in a possible God is not only
not restricted to an all-beneficent world/God but can't be for one because the
hardships of the world indicate that God isn't all-beneficent.
The nice believers and non-believers would condemn the 'centric examples of
either (or people 'centric about race, nationality, etc.) who've caused the most
bloodbaths. It comes up in my example as part of a point that it would likewise
be unreasonable to require God as seeing people as deserving heaven on Earth for
being all-beneficent.
glenster
JoinedPosts by glenster
-
26
Why dont more Christians invoke a JW-style Satan argument when debating why God allows suffering?
by Half a Person ini have just been watched the first part of a sort-of theist vs atheist debate on youtube featuring christopher hitchens.. what struck me is that in all of these types of debates that ive seen, the christians, when faced with the question why does god allow suffering, never really provide any sort of satisfying answer.
its usually something along the lines of:.
our question shouldnt be what is *god* doing, but, rather, we should ask ourselves: what am *i* doing?
-
-
glenster
-
74
I'm Still Torn About the Blood Issue
by palmtree67 inwhen i left the org.
the blood issue wasn't an issue for me.
my best friend was on the blood committee for years and i could see many cases where either blood wouldn't have saved the person anyways (like when a person is in a serious car accident and their liver is in pieces), or blood actually killed the person and/or hindered recovery.. then my little nephew got leukemia.
-
-
glenster
What I have on it is on pp.11 to 42 at the next link.
http://gtw6437.tripod.com/index.html -
26
Why dont more Christians invoke a JW-style Satan argument when debating why God allows suffering?
by Half a Person ini have just been watched the first part of a sort-of theist vs atheist debate on youtube featuring christopher hitchens.. what struck me is that in all of these types of debates that ive seen, the christians, when faced with the question why does god allow suffering, never really provide any sort of satisfying answer.
its usually something along the lines of:.
our question shouldnt be what is *god* doing, but, rather, we should ask ourselves: what am *i* doing?
-
-
glenster
Why serve a God who isn't an all-beneficent God who has everyone live in
heavenly circumstances forever?
The idea goes God's allows free will--tried it with angels, for whom God is
directly before them so it's obvious from their circumstances that following God
is the good deal, and people on Earth, whom we know aren't all-beneficent
people living on an all-beneficent Earth. The Earth has the freedom to be good
or bad, too.
Sympathy for the Deity
Before you decide God doesn't have the good judgment to preside over a world
that's the equal of people that are all-beneficent, look at some of the things
about the human prospects in the groups of links at the next link.
http://gtw6437.tripod.com/id58.html
Imagine three tiers of quality of beings: God > people > animals.
I'll make a bad analogy between God and people and people and animals. ("Peo-
ple aren't animals." "Have you ever eaten with one?"--paraphrase from "The Pro-
ducers.")
You're a rancher. A lot of the tan cows are killing the brown cows, the brown
cows are killing the yellow cows, the cows that moo twice are killing the cows
that moo once who are killing the cows that don't moo but jangle the bell around
their necks. Some cows hog the food so others don't get any or at least won't
move it closer to the ones who can't reach it. A lot of them are anti-rancher.
A cow might look at all the hardships and say life sucks, and another cow
might see all the same things yet be glad for their shot at life and what good
they found in it. There's no credible concept of an all-beneficent rancher (or
cows or ranch) or that choice wouldn't exist. If either consider the rancher,
there's only how each of the two regard the idea of the rancher presiding over
it all. If one serves the rancher, it's not for being deluded that it's an all-
beneficent ranch anymore than they'd have to see and all-beneficent ranch to be
glad for their shot at life on a ranch without a rancher.
A guy who's trying to overtake your support from the cows comes by and says to
be a good enough to be a rancher you'd have to be like he would and have all
those cows live like close family in your ranch house.
It would be a mistake to blame that guy for all the hardships in the world.
He just contributes to them as a son from the rancher's dysfunctional family
who's seen as presiding over those who decide life sucks and to forget the
rancher.
You might call it cruel and you might call it callous, but you were thinking,
"Some hamburgers would go good about now." Still, you decide to bring some cows
into the house even though you know most people, if they could be ranchers,
would never think they'd want even one cow living in their ranch house, rescue
one from an animal shelter or medical lab, or even have the sick ones in the
house when you can use the barn for that, but they think it's their prerogative
to consider themselves as making good ranchers. They have some self-esteem
about who they'd have live in their house, but you're not supposed to have any--
how did you get stuck? That guy who came by doesn't even have a house.
Poor God. -
12
Uncyclopedia about Jehovah's Witnesses
by teel inhttp://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/jehovah%27s_witnesses.
i found this so funny, especially if you are/were/know a lot about jws.
what is funny is that it's mostly the truth, presented in a humorous form.
-
-
glenster
Lol! multiple times.
Unclean Things
Pagan holidays
* Halloween. Reason: Jehovah Witnesses don't like strangers knocking on their
doors.
Blood transfusion, because it's just disgusting.
Some Jehovah's Witnesses have become part of the Jehovah's Witness Protection
Program, a federal government attempt to protect them from the persecution by
the International Zionist Conspiracy, Yahweh's latest attempt at extralegal
settlement of his dispute with Jehovah. Contrary to the disinformation spread by
false religions, the Jehovah's Witness Protection Program is not intended to
protect other people from Jehovah's Witnesses, as they are well known to be
harmless, aside from the fact that they caused the end of the world at least
nine times.
# Pagan - basically the worst word you can use to describe anything. If they
refer to anything as 'pagan', like christmas, birthdays, the yin-yang symbol,
fantasia, or saying 'good luck', it means they should basically treat the thing
as if the devil had sculpted it from his own turds and thrown them at you
screaming something about your mother and cocks in hell.
How to anger a Jehovah Witness
1. If they arrive at your doorstep and ask, "Can I talk to you about God?"
Reply, "Sure, what would you like to know?".
2. Repeat what they say.
3. Take away your door so that they can't knock (they love the knocking door
sound).
4. Invite them in to see your collection of either Jewish family Haggadah or
prominently displayed statues of Buddha, Krishna, and Shiva on embellished al-
tars.
5. Ask them directions to go to a nearby protestant or catholic church.
6. Ask them to pray for somebody who has passed away.
7. Mention the failed prophecies of 1844 and 1914.
8. Insistingly say: "if you're not one of the 144,000, I don't want to talk
to you." If the Witness claim to be one of the 144,000, then say that he/she has
too much of an ego, which is not a trait approved by Jehovah.
9. Draw amusing illustrations in their Bibles and Textbooks.
10. Answer the door naked, with an erection and with your body painted head to
toe in blue swirly patterns. Politely inform them that your not interested in
joining a monotheistic faith but tell them they are quite welcome to come and
join in the Pagan orgy thats currently going on upstairs (note: this has been
tried for real by one of my workmates brothers. It worked a treat, the door-
knockers were never seen again). -
-
-
-
9
"We will build towers to the heavens." "Man was not built for such a height."
by sd-7 inthis topic has almost certainly been discussed before, but it just popped into my head.
the title for this topic is a quote from a brilliant rock band called the protomen--for you video-gamers out there, if you've never heard of them, you should give 'em a listen on itunes or wherever.
they're incredible.
-
-
glenster
The Bible doesn't intend an all beneficent God (or all beneficent people), not
that He uses His prerogative the most extremely in this one. He reacts to human
pride (not that He thought there was no limit to what people could do). They
could still have united, learned each other's languages, and continued, but He
showed the folly of human pride in that by merely assigning them different cul-
tures, they became 'centric about their groups (still a problem too often to-
day) so didn't continue together and accomplish more. It might be taken figura-
tively for the origin of various cultures (and a warning against being too 'cen-
tric and prideful in a way that divides people over unimportant differences).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tower_of_babel -
11
Pondering the Flood...
by 2pink inthis is only my second thread here on this forum, so forgive me if i put this on the wrong board.. i'm a jw on the way out....past few years and esp past few months of thinking have pretty much sealed the deal for me.
i'm done.. so anyway, as i allow myself to think more and more and question more and more of the bible, something i have always wondered about is the flood.
did god regret doing that, hence the rainbow promise??
-
-
glenster
There were people who figured it as meant as figurative for theological teach-
ing a long time ago, what with two orders of appearance of things in the begin-
ning, etc. The rainbow would be used by God in making a covenant with the sur-
vivors in reassuring them He wasn't going to create a flood like that again.
Homosexuality is debated.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegorical_interpretations_of_Genesis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_according_to_Genesis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rainbows_in_mythology
"True, some individuals may very well be prone to homosexuality...a
Christian cannot excuse immoral behavior by saying he was 'born that way.'
Child molesters invoke the same pathetic excuse when they say their craving for
children is 'innate.' But can anyone deny that their sexual appetite is per-
verted? So is the desire for someone of the same sex." ("Awake!" Feb.8, 1995)
The Watchtower stance is that homosexuality is a sin like child molestation.
http://www.watchtower.org/e/20020601a/article_01.htm
http://www.watchtower.org/e/20050408a/article_01.htm
Some defenses of interpretations of scriptures to not ban homosexuality:
http://escapefromwatchtower.com/homo.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible_and_homosexuality -
26
Where does NEW LIGHT come from?
by sacolton inthe watchtower has said over and over that they are not inspired (even though their earlier publications claimed that they were modern-day prophets), so where exactly does "new light" come from?
if they are not inspired by god, why should anyone listen to them?.
-
-
-
13
What Are the GREATEST SINS One Can Commit in the WT World?
by Cold Steel inone of the greatest, i'll bet, is apostasy.. but what about others?
what is someone has committed adultery?
or even murder?
-
-
glenster
Be Jesus and return and blow the JWs leaders' deal.
-
14
Why Apostate?
by wantstoleave inthis may have been discussed elsewhere on this board but is something i've become increasingly aware of, and that's the apostasy issue.
growing up, i don't think anyone ever explained what it meant, nor did i ask - i just knew it was 'bad' and punishable by disfellowshipping.
therefore it is fairly embarrassing to say that until a few minutes ago and looking it up in a dictionary, i did not know what the meaning was.
-
-
glenster
"why the organisation feels the need to make such a deal of an apostate":
The JWs leaders have notably harsh disfellowshipping rules because they have a
concern beyond the usual things disfellowshipping is used for--something they're
more protective about.
Someone who stops following the JWs leaders might be someone who's wise to the
methods the JWs leaders use to affect their exclusiveness--the methods they use
to make a dozen or so rules with bad cases seem like they're supported by the
best reasoning and evidence.
The JWs leaders send their followers into the public where they could run into
all kinds of people, and followers will leave now and then who want to keep the
friends they made. Those who leave might be especially concerned to tell
friends who still follow the JWs leaders about the evidence they found about the
JWs leaders' false claims of exclusiveness. So the JWs leaders cast those who
leave as enemies, like they use harsh disfellowshipping rules for persistent
disagreement with any of the JWs leaders' distinctive rules, for damage control.
Persistent sinfulness is bad, but the JWs leaders are more concerned to try to
minimize how often someone will talk one of their customers out of sending the
JWs leaders money.
