Posts by Moxy

82

What's Right about "Right?"

by Farkel in

jw
friends

hang on, folks.

if a) is true then god is arbitrary: anything he says is right, is right.

so you admit that gods decisions are purely arbitrary?.

Moxy

: : im exploring the idea of god following a standard without requiring that there be a higher law

: God either defines the standard or he follows another standard. What other possibilities do you see?

none, but following a standard does not mean that a law exists above god.

im looking at it this way: if u say that god must follow, for example, the laws of physics, well then he isnt god because god must exist above the laws of physics. he should have made them and he could have made different laws of physics than the ones we know. we can imagine such a universe as possible. your argument seems similar but with 'moral law' substituted for 'laws of physics' - so im trying to find a 'standard' or 'law' that is intrinsic to our state of existence which god could not create and for which no other possibility exists. and that standard is rationality. put simply, true is true and not false. god should be the ultimate judge of what is true and what is false and what is neither. if we can explain moral law in terms of rationality (im not sure that we can) then we have a standard of rightness that god follows that no one 'made' or imposed on him. it simply _is_. now i dont know how any of this would affect us peons. if we thought that our god was being inconsistent or irrational and called him to task on it, i suppose he could just sigh and say, 'you'll understand one day when _you're_ omnipotent' and maybe smite us a couple times for asking. from a more technical standpoint, quantum physics tells us that there can statements that _are_ both true and false at the same, and whereas god should be able to see past that, it doesnt really help us from our viewpoint. to us his standard of truth would just seem arbitrary no matter how kindly he explained to us that he really, really was the real deal. i dont really think this line of reasoning takes us anywhere useful at all but i feel obligated to try and present counter-arguments to anything i hear. thats just how i figure things out...

mox

82

What's Right about "Right?"

by Farkel in

jw
friends

hang on, folks.

if a) is true then god is arbitrary: anything he says is right, is right.

so you admit that gods decisions are purely arbitrary?.

Moxy

> The two that the theory presents are:

> 1) God IS the standard
> 2) God is subject to another standard

thats not what im saying the dilemma might be--it was your statement that follows from that that god is either an arbitrary jerk or is subordinate to a higher law. im exploring the idea of god following a standard without requiring that there be a higher law. perhaps if youve been reading up on this then my line of thought regarding rationality is covered in like chapter 2 of the 'Big Book of Divine Ethics' so you can just cut to the conclusion and/or direct me to some reading material that u think i might like.

mox

82

What's Right about "Right?"

by Farkel in

jw
friends

hang on, folks.

if a) is true then god is arbitrary: anything he says is right, is right.

so you admit that gods decisions are purely arbitrary?.

Moxy

fark:
you're right, the substance of my comments were just an impromptu opinion i formed while reading your post late at night :) and yes, i would want to read up on the subject before trying a full-blown debate but let me try to elaborate a bit more on my logical counter-argument and u tell me if u think it has any merit.

in this post and the one on 'god v good' you are trying to establish what is 'uppermost' the standard or god himself. does god follow the standard, making himself subordinate to it or does the standard follow god making him arbitrary and the concept of right basically meaningless? im saying that this is a 'false dilemma', black-and-white argument. it does not necessarily follow that a standard which god follows makes him subordinate to that standard.

eg, if a divine being were to lie, say that something would definitely occur but did not, then we could conclude that he wasnt really god in the omnipotent omniscient sense (lets exclude that line for sake of this argument) or that he is implying that lying is 'ok' or 'good' (at least when he does it.) our god is now inconsistent. what law has he broken? a logical law, i suppose. if a==b is determinably true then a!=b is false. did god invent that law? would it be possible to have a universe for which that law was not true, an 'irrational universe'? if you think it is, then you might as well get off the bus here, i have no counter-argument for that. if there were a supposition of true and false states so that both existed and were both equally 'real' (as in quantum theory's mulitverse interpretation), then god by definition would need to inhabit a state outside of that where the truth or falsehood of a==b was indeterminate. so even though the universe from our viewpoint might be irrational, it could not be for god. so from his viewpoint, that law could not be violated. consistency and rationality and truth then become standards that are the result of a rational state of existence. to say that god might 'follow' that standard in his own dealings does not seem to make him subordinate to a higher standard, because i cannot see how there could be any other state of existence that did not have such a logical basis but is still inhabited by conscious beings. and from there i think you could define 'right' and 'good' in terms of rationality and consistency.

note: 'god' in my arguments is god in the popular definition and not the OT jehovah so please do not use the bible to counter them.

also when i say that you nor i will disturb the logic of the faithful, i am not implying that faith is based on logic. prehaps i should say the 'logic' of the faithful, with logic in quotes.

mox

82

What's Right about "Right?"

by Farkel in

jw
friends

hang on, folks.

if a) is true then god is arbitrary: anything he says is right, is right.

so you admit that gods decisions are purely arbitrary?.

Moxy

well ill say a couple words just for the hell of it.

it sounds like a lot of the arguments are just you trying to mess with fundies' minds. :) you seem to harp on this word 'arbitrary' like if you could get the fundie arguee to have to agree that their God is 'arbitrary' youd have caught them in an unspeakable blashpemy. does the situation need to be so black-and-white. would a divine being necessarily be either subordinate or a jerk. is there no other choice. mightnt it be enuf to say that he was _consistent_, as all children want from their care-givers? that would not require there to be an outside fundamental compass of rightness, just consistency. the opposite of which would be irrationality. do these logical precepts require a higher, external law or could they not be products of a rational universe? well, at this point the argument starts to get a bit ethereal and, tho i find it very interesting, i doubt youll have much luck disturbing the faithfuls' logical footing with it.

also, on the subject of killing, the WT line goes (and i have no problem with it) that 'thou must not kill' really reads 'you must not _murder_' refering to illegal killing. this is the only way that makes any sense at all, or else youd have a law that says the punishemnt for breaking the law is to break the law again, by executing the offender. and i just cant think the hebrews were all that stupid to not have done a double take on this whole covenant thing if that were the case.

just thought id throw that out there

mox

44

High priced Kingdom Halls

by JWD in

jw
friends

it`s been interesting watching the org.

trying different ways to make money while at the same time keeping up a front of not being interested in money.

especially since they were forced to drop the.

Moxy

you mentioned a lot about change over there, thx.

a couple other questions:
hows the general feeling among Japan-JWs changed recently? is the pressure to pioneer lessening and have the pioneers been getting increasingly tired, ie have they been able to keep up with 70h/mo?

umm, ill think of more questions later.
thx
mox

7

intro?

by cecil in

jw
friends

my name is cecil.

as you can imagine i am not posting with my real name.

call it what you want but i am not yet ready to 'jump out of the closet', as we put in my mother-tongue.

Moxy

how does your wife feel?

mox

4

Hauty JWs

by buscar in

jw
friends

have you noticed the holier than though attitute is very similar in fred hall and stillinthetruth?.

at least you know had some brains and some bible knowledge.

he spoke with a forked tongue and not his ass.. we all know that dear old freddie is sufferring from premature alzheimers but this stillinthetruth character must be a stooge.

Moxy

where is youknow? still in h2o? i miss him :)

mox

12

"God's"=Brooklyn's view...

by Norm in

jw
friends

Moxy

26

How long was it for you?

by expatbrit in

jw
friends

i'm curious: how many years were you in before you left?

by left, i mean either df'd and decided not to go back, or da'd, or faded, or even just realized it was a crock but stuck around anyway for family reasons?.

we're told in la-la-land that it's the newly baptized, those who are "spiritually immature" that mostly leave.

Moxy

otoh, i think its fairly obvious that someone who was new, tried it for a bit and opted out, would be less likely to seek out other xjw's in places like this. their experience would be nothing like yours. so it isnt really a fair sampling.

a little different question i ask myself is how many leave for misconduct as opposed to ideological reasons. of course this is very hard to judge. we hear that the vast majority of df's are for immorality and i have no reason to doubt that but that is only a part of the story. those who leave by choice for ideological reasons are, of course, more likely to choose means that dont involve df'ing if they can. also, i would think that some have doubts but stick around for family reasons, but end up being df'ed for conduct reasons, either because they felt the need to force the issue, or just due to the sheer mental imbalance that results from crisis of faith. either way, the act of leaving was precipitated by doubts, not conduct.

jws find it helpful to believe that most leave for conduct. whereas sites like this attract those that leave out of disbeliefs for obvious reaons. so the numbers here will be skewed the other way.

well now im just babbling. its late.
any thoughts?

mox

8

I think I am gonna be sick

by NikL in

jw
friends

my good lil jw wife received the following heartwarming e mail.

gag!....

experience: told by instructor in recent mts class graduation .

Moxy

do u dismiss the story out of hand? assume it to be a myth thats been passed around? assume that other religions all have similar 'experiences' that simply result by virtue of size of organization times coincidence?

im actually curious. weve all heard tons of these stories. some we know, _are_ mythical. but ive always wondered. so heres a good case-in-point. do u think this actually happened and if so what do u think of it?

mox