i have recommended this book in a number of other thread but have never taken the time to start my own thread for this book.. .
the book is titled war in heaven, heaven on earth (theories of the apocalyptic).
it is a collection of essays by a number of prominent scholars which analyze millennialism and apocalyptic belief form a number of different contexts.. .
Drew,
Another book which helps one see the history of apocalyptic thinking in context is. 'In Pursuit Of The Millenium' by Norman Cohen. It is carefully researched and well written and follows the threads of apocalyptic and Chiliast thinking from the C1st to the C20th without exception.
I recommend every lurking JW to read this book. It is not written by an 'apostate' so it is a legal read. ;)
HS
and i wonder, where could god be now?
) either god wanted to eliminate evil and could not.
if option number two is the case, god is evil.
Burn,
I posited a vacuum of sorts in my post above that allows the existence of evil, I described that vacuum as free will.
This does not attend to the moral implication of an 'ominpotent' being who has the power of intervention standing aside for tens of thousands of years while women are raped, babies are killed, innocents are murdered, tens of millions starve to death, etc.
Ae you suggesting that God, having free will, turns aside from doing anything about such sufffering due to some mysterious Master Plan? If so, this is not just immoral, it is criminally negligent.
HS
and i wonder, where could god be now?
) either god wanted to eliminate evil and could not.
if option number two is the case, god is evil.
XJW and Alpaca,
However, to characterize a natural event as "evil" is probably not so useful in trying to understand our world and how it works.
Rapunzel is using the term 'natural' and 'unnatural' evil in its accepted philosophical constraints and definitions, not in its everyday usage. The moral implications are quite different.
HS
recently i carefully read (and highlighted) chapter 4 of richard dawkins book "the god delusion".
dawkins argument is meant to show that "there almost certainly is no god".
his reasoning (taken from various points on different pages by myself) is basically as follows:.
Void.
I am increasingly convinced that no logical grounds for God will ever be obtained. That doesn't make God non-existent - it merely shows He's not provable in the logical sense. By assertion, supposition, intuition, experientially - all fine; but not by logic.
Of course, and this is the conclusion reached in most of these debates on this Board. I see nothing to be ashamed of in this position for the believer, though many religionists seem to feel it shameful to acknowledge what is actually a fact.
I think the issue rears its head only when the religious mind tries to defend the indefensible. Then the conversation more often than it should slides into psuedo-sceince, psuedo-logic, and an appeal to the emotions rather than the development of rational thinking.
This thread is a picture of such thinking. Hooberus seems to feel that in undermining the argument of one man, Dawkins, that then the sum of his arguments become void. Dawkins arguments are not unique, he just shouts louder than most. He is merely collating the philosophy and science of the past hundred years into a summation that is easily disgested by those who are not of a scientific bent. Does he make errors of logic here and there? Of course. Does he make minor mistakes in his scientific analogies? Yes, on occasion. Are his arguments thus defeated, of coure not.
HS
and i wonder, where could god be now?
) either god wanted to eliminate evil and could not.
if option number two is the case, god is evil.
Burn,
You should not infer sarcasm. To use your example, I could have a million dollars but not be able to use them at the moment, perhaps I am far from an ATM, or I do not have checks. Perhaps I am stranded on Gilligan's Island and I am the millionaire. In effect I would not be a millionaire.
How would you apply this to the question of natural and unnatural evil and Gods existence? You suggest that God is 'omnipotent in theory', yet seem to also suggest that his capabilities are compromised due to situational issues.
It is Tuesday, so I am not quite sure what you believe today, but I would be interested to read your rationalization. ;)
HS
i just read a post where a 52 year old woman posted a huge diatribe about a certain subject....not a big deal but it was used with multiple sized fonts and well just plainly over sized.
i have noticed this is a problem with most older ones who post on the internet?
whats up with that?
Being the age that I am I had a chance to kind of grow up around computers and there fore didn't have to really re learn anything.
Perhaps this is the answer to your own question? Many ancient fifty year olds may not have had this opportunity and are part of a learning curve.
Be as patient with them as your parents were with you when you were a spotty teenager behaving like a prize arse. ;)
HS
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".
Blimey Terry,
I have never seen a thread attract this much attention unless it has 'oral sex', or 'pizza toppings' in the thread title.
Congratulations. ;)
HS
do you think they make the best parents?.
the best children?.
the best workers?.
Some of the best examples of human life that I know are JW's, as are some of the worst.
In that way they mimic the rest of humanity, apart of course from claiming that they are much, much, better people than the rest of the world and believing that everybody else deserves to die because they are not living as they do. ;)
HS
recently i carefully read (and highlighted) chapter 4 of richard dawkins book "the god delusion".
dawkins argument is meant to show that "there almost certainly is no god".
his reasoning (taken from various points on different pages by myself) is basically as follows:.
Burn,
Beginnings and Endings only have meaning within the context of Time. Remove Time and there are no Beginnings and no Endings. Time began with the Universe. Of course, it's difficult for us to imagine Timelessness (aka Eternity), but it's just as difficult for us to imagine a Universe with more than three physical dimensions. We are limited by our own senses and experiences. We're all Flatlanders. Mathematics, however, is not as limited by our perceptive weaknesses so we can describe some things mathematically that we can't conceive of properly otherwise.
A high-sounding statement for which there is not the tiniest shred of evidential proof.
Can you religionists not understand that Dawkins, for all his faults, is merely trying to introduce measurability into the equation of faith. When he does so, faith falls away.
Now, there is no issue in a person discounting the measurable and decalring, 'I do not care about science or measurability, I know what I believe'. It is when they utter such statements as you have above, which is tantamount to the WTS rebuttal of Carl Jonssons work (we may not have the answers to prove our position now, but one day we may have!) that we know when straws are being grasped.
You have correctly suggested that with mathematics comes measurability, on which our civilization is founded, and that often this measurability can be used to describe the unseen, but you have already denied the power of this measurability in your first sentence.
Logic follows a developmental pattern, and this is the mistake that both yourself and Hooberus have made in dealing with Dawkins work. You have tried to shuffle the pattern to suit your objectives. 'Ain't gonna wor.
HS
recently i carefully read (and highlighted) chapter 4 of richard dawkins book "the god delusion".
dawkins argument is meant to show that "there almost certainly is no god".
his reasoning (taken from various points on different pages by myself) is basically as follows:.
Hooberus,
You have missed the point that Hooberus was making, which is the development of a logical position, in favor of a preconceived notion (that Dawkins is attempting to deceive).
As you seem to think you understand the issue, pray explain to us exactly how Dawkins is using 'deception' to make his point, as opposed to the merely following a logical train of thought from a premise that was posited. The Hobberus ;) comes nowhere near to defining this as others have pointed out, but makes leap of logic in order to try to make his point and tangles himself in his own tights.
Explain the logic of The Hooberus, Burn.
HS
