reading about the massacre of the jw family in mexico brought up all kinds of questions again.. from the standpoint of someone who doesn't in believe in 'god' or a 'conventional' god,.
what is the meaning and purpose of evil?.
how does it relate to the overall universe and its balance?
Reading about the massacre of the JW family in Mexico brought up all kinds of questions again.
From the standpoint of someone who doesn't in believe in 'God' or a 'conventional' God,
what IS the meaning and purpose of evil?
How does it relate to the overall universe and its balance?
how are we able to do this.. this is not an attempt to stir the pot or cause confusion but i was sitting here thinking of all the really horrid things that the old testament god did to people.
when i was a jw i just purposely put it to the back of my mind always trying to make an excuse.
when i was in field service and someone would ask me about it i would just change the subject.. however i have been reading alot of info lately here about how wonderful jesus is and how he is a direct representation of what god the father would be.
it's not word games adam, it's reality.
what's the point in discussing the subject if we are not going to base our perspectives on reality?
how are we able to do this.. this is not an attempt to stir the pot or cause confusion but i was sitting here thinking of all the really horrid things that the old testament god did to people.
when i was a jw i just purposely put it to the back of my mind always trying to make an excuse.
when i was in field service and someone would ask me about it i would just change the subject.. however i have been reading alot of info lately here about how wonderful jesus is and how he is a direct representation of what god the father would be.
holy frijole adam!
here is Confused's opening to the OP -
How are we able to do this.
This is not an attempt to stir the pot or cause confusion but I was sitting here thinking of all the really horrid things that the Old Testament god did to people.
Confused must assume that the God of the OT as HE understands him to exist was real. EXCEPT HE ISN'T!!! LOL!
CAA asked- Anyway is there truly a valid reason to believe that the actions of the Old Testament God are in some way valid?
no! there isn't ANY VALID reason to abuse another human. Except, God of OT (as Confused understands him to be) didn't abuse anyone EITHER!! Becase...HE DOESN'T EXIST!!
It's like asking, "Is Santa Claus really acting fair when not delivering gifts via chimeny to naughty kids???"
lol, adam
how are we able to do this.. this is not an attempt to stir the pot or cause confusion but i was sitting here thinking of all the really horrid things that the old testament god did to people.
when i was a jw i just purposely put it to the back of my mind always trying to make an excuse.
when i was in field service and someone would ask me about it i would just change the subject.. however i have been reading alot of info lately here about how wonderful jesus is and how he is a direct representation of what god the father would be.
adam!
So, 'MAN' gave other men permission to buy and sell humans. The 'MAN' in your metaphorical reading were immoral then, since modern men have long-ago abolished institutionalized slavery, recognizing that owning humans robs them and the owners of dignity, since people are not possessions.
yes, yes, and ...yes!!
lol, why are you arguing me then? we both agree that man throughout history has been dissapointing in treating his fellow man. this is FACTUAL. It HAPPENED, and continues to happen even today despite all the progress.
...are you arguing that 'God' (the ancient bearded man in heaven) does this? that is what Confused is asking.
Why DOES man commit atrocities against man? the reasons are many though not justified...
Your argument in defense of the Bible's "God" is vapid, since you seemingly refuse to acknowledge that the question is NOT about the name given to the individual who set up the practice, but the ACTION itself: the violation of human rights (eg slavery) is not swept away or dismissed, simply by playing such labelling games and claiming mistaken identity.
where did you get the idea that i'm defending the actions of 'God'?? If i say that 'God' in this sense is man, that is NOT defending such actions.
how are we able to do this.. this is not an attempt to stir the pot or cause confusion but i was sitting here thinking of all the really horrid things that the old testament god did to people.
when i was a jw i just purposely put it to the back of my mind always trying to make an excuse.
when i was in field service and someone would ask me about it i would just change the subject.. however i have been reading alot of info lately here about how wonderful jesus is and how he is a direct representation of what god the father would be.
Morality is a symbolic concept in itself, but I wouldn't expect you to grasp that concept
adam
what is it with you sounding so pissed off at anyone trying to give an answer to a question?
lol, it's ridiculous and devoid of class...
to answer your question...the OP asked how can we VALIDATE what the God of the OT did? Apparently, there is a disconnect in the mind of Confused.
I stated that the 'God' of the OT is a metaphor for MAN, and man's actions. Now, unless you can prove that ancient man/God exists, then the OT is a metaphor. I say it is a metaphor for MAN, hence all the crazy actions emmanating from this 'God'.
how are we able to do this.. this is not an attempt to stir the pot or cause confusion but i was sitting here thinking of all the really horrid things that the old testament god did to people.
when i was a jw i just purposely put it to the back of my mind always trying to make an excuse.
when i was in field service and someone would ask me about it i would just change the subject.. however i have been reading alot of info lately here about how wonderful jesus is and how he is a direct representation of what god the father would be.
Anyway is there truly a valid reason to believe that the actions of the Old Testament God are in some way valid?
confused,
you are only scratching on the very top surface of the subject that you are trying to understand.
if it doesn't make literal sense in the deepest part of your mind, its for a reason.
What you are reading in the old testament is metaphorical, symbolic. The extreme reactions of the 'God' of the old testament, are the reactions of MAN. Man can be very loving and caring, he can also be hateful and vengeful.
Remember this when you read the old testament and it will make a lot more sense to you.
this was covered a little on another thread and interested me.
i have always been convinced einstien believed in god.
i assumed what i had learned was correct and never thought i was taught something wrong.. i have seen some points posters have made.
adam
Firestein explains that ignorance, in fact, grows from knowledge — that is, the more we know, the more we realize there is yet to be discovered. The purpose of gaining knowledge is, in fact, “to make better ignorance: to come up with, if you will, higher quality ignorance,” he describes. “The purpose is to be able to ask lots of questions — to be able to frame thoughtful, interesting questions — because that’s where the work is.”
adam
very interesting quote and very true. i imagine the same 'principle' can be applied to the understanding and comprehending of the subject of 'God'.
this was covered a little on another thread and interested me.
i have always been convinced einstien believed in god.
i assumed what i had learned was correct and never thought i was taught something wrong.. i have seen some points posters have made.
adam
However, Einstein was NOT a theologian (one who claims to KNOW about God), just a famous scientist, so making his beliefs on God as a topic of discussion wasn't his goal or responsibility since he knew God was not a scientific matter, being untestable.
adam
seems like you are confusing two things here regarding Einstein. While it is true that he was not a theologian, when he DID refer to the espinozan 'God', Einstein knew the subject inside out. In this sense, god/science was very scientific and very testable.
this was covered a little on another thread and interested me.
i have always been convinced einstien believed in god.
i assumed what i had learned was correct and never thought i was taught something wrong.. i have seen some points posters have made.
I still think it is pointless and misleading to use the word god outside the broadest sense of theism. If somebody doesn't believe in a personal, immanent god then they would do us all a favour by not using the word at all.
in a 'perfect' world cofty...in a perfect world.
this was covered a little on another thread and interested me.
i have always been convinced einstien believed in god.
i assumed what i had learned was correct and never thought i was taught something wrong.. i have seen some points posters have made.
I don't care WHERE you found it: it could be from Hindu holy books, for all I care. It's flat-out WRONG, just the same, as it represents an attempt to mix theology into the philosophy of science, which only "dummy downs" science
lol adam,
now you are an expert on ALL theology reference books! here is proof that you are most definetely NOT an expert -
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search This article is about the general term, particularly as it refers to experimental sciences. For other uses, see Science (disambiguation). 
Science (from Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge" [ 1 ] ) is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe. [ 2 ] [ 3 ] In an older and closely related meaning, "science" also refers to a body of knowledge itself, of the type that can be rationally explained and reliably applied. A practitioner of science is known as a scientist.
Since classical antiquity, science as a type of knowledge has been closely linked to philosophy. In the early modern period the words "science" and "philosophy of nature" were sometimes used interchangeably. [ 4 ] By the 17th century, natural philosophy (which is today called "natural science") was considered a separate branch of philosophy. [ 5 ]
so it appears adam,
that science and philosophy were in fact one and the same at some point in early human history.
