Posts by latinthunder

i wrote an article on the topic of god's eyebrow-raising lenience shown to cain after killing his brother, exploring possible reasons why the account was written as it was:.

http://awgue.weebly.com/why-did-god-seemingly-allow-cain-to-get-away-with-murder.html.

questions, comments (as well as heads-up on typos, grammar, etc) welcome here, as usual!.

Adam, I really enjoyed reading that article and, for the most part, I agree with you especially about how Paul was wrong. However, in regards to Genesis 4 you left a LOT out but the article doesn't seem to want to be comprehensive, but specialized. Allow me to expound:

Cain represents the "seed of the serpent" mentioned in the previous chapter and Abel the "seed of the woman." The prophecy was that the serpent's seed would be a setback for mankind that would eventually be overcome by the seed of the woman. It sets the stage for the battle between good and evil (Genesis means ORIGINS so you have the origin of the battle of good and evil in it). The evil one's being those who gave into their evil inclination and the good ones's being those who remained in control of their faculties; the ones who "rule over" their own sin.

Cain and Abel were brothers and like any two brothers they were rivals. This is why one kept flocks and the other worked the soil. Both were trying to please God by way of competition. It was Cain and Abel who made God choose between them and he did, he chose Abel. He crowned him the victor in their childish game. Cain then becomes a sore loser and allows his evil inclination firmly set in his psyche, resulting in a crime of passion.

What's important to note is that the evil inclination actually comes with a spiritual element. That's why God says that sin was "crouching" at Cain's door. All men have a "beast within" that we can choose to embrace, or subdue, this is by design. The serpent, who is the devil, is a hunter like a lion crouching in the high grass waiting for an opportunity to strike. It could be said that God warned Cain about the devil's interest in him.

An important theme in the Torah is the negative effects of greed, specifically greed for power. Cain had a huge ego to fill and desired power over God himself. That's why he became angry at God, because he believed he was superior to him and was being told he was inferior to his brother. He didn't really get that idea from himself, but from "someone" else. His weaknesses were being exploited by powers beyond himself.

Consider the greek word for "dragon" which is used in the book of Revelation:

1404 drákōn (from derkomai, "to see," the root of the English term, "dragon") – properly "seeing one," used of mythical dragons (huge serpents) seeing their prey from far away; (figuratively) Satan (Rev 12:7,9) exercising his subtle (indirect) impact on heathen governments (powers) – i.e. accomplishing his hellish agenda from "behind the scenes."

A dragon is a mythical creature which has the charactistic of hunting it's prey from behind the scenes (possibly using a type of telepathy). Which is exactly what took place in the story of Cain and Abel. Cain had no idea he was being hunted by the serpent who had other plans for him and his entire species.

So, with this information in mind put yourself into the shoes of the God character in Genesis 4. What he is seeing is, like Adam and Eve, his creation being utterly decieved. He tried to warn Cain, but he likely knew he wouldn't have the strength to stand up to the wiles of the devil, who was "crawling on his belly and eating dust" but still the "wisest of the wild animals." Cain, like Adam and Eve, was a sad story and God only charged him with manslaughter rather than murder one, like you said. His "perversion" as you say, was used to exploit him and his people.

In the end of the story we see the plan of the devil coming to fruition. He gets a civilization where he has more victims to prey on from behind the scenes, (as dragons do), which ultimately results in the entire human population giving into "yetzer hara" which then forces the hand of God in the Great Flood. By Genesis 6 it truly appears as if the devil is winning the battle he started with the Creator of all things. But if you keep reading you see that what happened was merely a bruising of the heel (a reference to the achilles heel) which causes a stumbling. The Torah shows everybody stumbling, including God which is why he had cause to regret. Yet, in the end the devil is thrown into the lake of fire and sulphur to eternally pay for his crimes throughout the ages.

I thank you for taking the time to write that article. It really got me thinking and I appreciate it!

12

Watchtower study about "Who is the FDS" planned on annual meeting?

by Gorbatchov in

jw
friends

is the watchtower study next sunday about "who is the fds?

" planned in the same weekend as the watchtower annual meeting?.

this can't be coincidental!.

latinthunder

I love this line on money - " we are merely giving to Jehovah what already belongs to him"

Does that mean that earning money is stealing from Jehovah?

29

Is it VITAL that we recognize the faithful slave?

by Trevor Scott in

jw gonebad made this comment in another post:.

get a load of this audacious and brassy statement by the self-appointed fds in par 2 of todays lesson:.

it is vital that we recognize the faithful slave.

latinthunder

According to the Jehovah's Witnesses they're more vital than a life-saving blood transfusion. They also allegedly give instructions that puny humans cannot understand.

92

When did Theology Last add something to Human Knowledge?

by cofty in

to illustrate my question.... i am watching an episode of the australian tv program "q & a" on youtube.

the panel includes the brilliant laurence krauss, gay bishop gene robinson, the woefully ignorant and bigoted rev fred nile and a few others.. the early questions put gene robinson under the spotlight and to be fair he comes across as a loving, compassionate, intelligent and - in his own words - "fabulous" person.

by contrast the reverend nile is a caricature of everything that is dispicable and hateful about theism.. a self-righteous young man in the audience asks gene how he deals with the bible's condemnation of homosexuality.

latinthunder

At a surface level theology and science seem to be in conflict but a deeper look into both reveals their ultimate complimentary nature. Theology and Science will approach the same phenomenon completely differently. Take the concept of Synchronicity for example. Theology has done wonders in helping explain this phenomenon, but so has Science. Both approaches bring something to the table. There is no reason to exclude theology as a explanatory method. However, it's the same in the reverse as well. If you ignore science in favor of theology you are robbing yourself of vital information about yourself and your environment. A good analogy would be a group of travelers lost in a jungle after a plane crash. Theology can help give them an extra motivational push to survive and Science provides the practical tools necessary for survival.

92

When did Theology Last add something to Human Knowledge?

by cofty in

to illustrate my question.... i am watching an episode of the australian tv program "q & a" on youtube.

the panel includes the brilliant laurence krauss, gay bishop gene robinson, the woefully ignorant and bigoted rev fred nile and a few others.. the early questions put gene robinson under the spotlight and to be fair he comes across as a loving, compassionate, intelligent and - in his own words - "fabulous" person.

by contrast the reverend nile is a caricature of everything that is dispicable and hateful about theism.. a self-righteous young man in the audience asks gene how he deals with the bible's condemnation of homosexuality.

latinthunder

Did you read Matt Walsh's article? It is so bad I think I will have to respond to it later.

What's fascinating to me about that article is it's the exact opposite of your position. I disagreed with the content of the blog, but I totally agree with it's tone. Theologists need to step up because they are wrongly rolling over to professional atheists such as Cofty (look up the etymology of the word in question, Cofty, and keep your pants on). Theology is not dead as Cofty and Co would have you believe, it's very much alive and it's growing. That's why the atheists have to fight so hard, because they know what they are up against. That's why they have to send doctors and lawyers at you because they know they face a worthy opponent. If theology was as fragile as they say it is, it wouldn't be around at all, it would have died a LONG time ago. Because the materialist argument has been around as long as the theological. It's yin/yang.

So, Theology has added nothing recently to human knowledge ? No one has mentioned anything that fits, on this thread.

This is a common tactic, rather than discuss the topic at hand, they dismiss it off hand. They pin the blue ribbon on their shirts and pat themselves on the back as the theolgists submit further original content. They go into the debate believing they have already won it. The definition of confirmation bias. They don't really have anything original to say, but that's to be expected of people who see themselves as captives in an objective reality. In such a place, no one is truly unique.

As Dawkins once said, studying Theology is about as sensible as studying Fairyology.

It's funny because both are worthy academic pursuits so what he said is actually totally true. In the atheist objective reality the top scientists become the governing body and everybody just parrots what they say (sound familiar?). The whole point of setting up an objective reality at ALL would be to lord over it. Yet, that's not what God did, rather, he set up a reality where we could set up our own reality. We could make our bed and then sleep in it! He literally gave us the magic wand and people like Dawkins want to use it as kindling.

92

When did Theology Last add something to Human Knowledge?

by cofty in

to illustrate my question.... i am watching an episode of the australian tv program "q & a" on youtube.

the panel includes the brilliant laurence krauss, gay bishop gene robinson, the woefully ignorant and bigoted rev fred nile and a few others.. the early questions put gene robinson under the spotlight and to be fair he comes across as a loving, compassionate, intelligent and - in his own words - "fabulous" person.

by contrast the reverend nile is a caricature of everything that is dispicable and hateful about theism.. a self-righteous young man in the audience asks gene how he deals with the bible's condemnation of homosexuality.

latinthunder

So I can't really argue FOR theology; though it may help some who need such arguments perhaps... to look at Christ; and THEN, through knowing Him, they might know God. But it probably also prevents some from listening to HIM; because they are instead listening to certain scholars and philosophers, etc.

Yes, if only people would "look to Christ"..... whatever that means.

92

When did Theology Last add something to Human Knowledge?

by cofty in

to illustrate my question.... i am watching an episode of the australian tv program "q & a" on youtube.

the panel includes the brilliant laurence krauss, gay bishop gene robinson, the woefully ignorant and bigoted rev fred nile and a few others.. the early questions put gene robinson under the spotlight and to be fair he comes across as a loving, compassionate, intelligent and - in his own words - "fabulous" person.

by contrast the reverend nile is a caricature of everything that is dispicable and hateful about theism.. a self-righteous young man in the audience asks gene how he deals with the bible's condemnation of homosexuality.

latinthunder

It is secualr society that has taken the lead in opposing homophobia and mysogyny. Theology has had to adapt to changing social mores. Those factions of religion that refuse to adapt are increasingly marginalised and irrelevant. But why did the more enlightened religions need secular sources to enlighten them?

I get the feeling that you're limiting your definition of theology to a certain religious ilk. Similar to the theory of evolution humanity's understanding of the Divine comes by way of a gradual process. That process has been in play for an extremely long time. The ancient religions are having a hard time, yes, but the one's they inspired are flourishing. There has never been a better time for spiritual groups because there is so much raw data to go from. The internet has bascially put history into the laps of the common man. They can finally take all the data and compile it for themselves. The newer religions of today (including many reformations of ancient religions) don't have near the problem of homophobia and misogyny as the older one's do. That's because, like everything else, theology is evolving.

The experiment of Religion, powered by the evolution of theology, has given us a large amount of "not" data about God. "God is NOT a bad guy" for instance. That's an incredible epiphany because there IS reason to beleive he might have been (as you so passionately debate). Theology sets that matter straight by explaining WHY God is good, rather than bad. Like a king trying to convince his people to serve him rather than lord over them.

The problem is that theology has always been uniquely human. Which means it comes with the potential to be misused and is not perfect. It was grossly misused to the point where some will question if it's even worth pursuing at all.

I think this is an important theological question:

If God could live in the modern world without knowledge of Himself, would he believe in a higher power?

92

When did Theology Last add something to Human Knowledge?

by cofty in

to illustrate my question.... i am watching an episode of the australian tv program "q & a" on youtube.

the panel includes the brilliant laurence krauss, gay bishop gene robinson, the woefully ignorant and bigoted rev fred nile and a few others.. the early questions put gene robinson under the spotlight and to be fair he comes across as a loving, compassionate, intelligent and - in his own words - "fabulous" person.

by contrast the reverend nile is a caricature of everything that is dispicable and hateful about theism.. a self-righteous young man in the audience asks gene how he deals with the bible's condemnation of homosexuality.

latinthunder

Taking christianity as an example, it's message begins by demeaning humans. Until somebody accepts that they are a miserable sinner there is nothing but judgement and condemnation. How can a belief system that teaches children they are broken, fallen sinners, claim a place in an enlightened world, even if it does trick people into being nice?

Original Sin is a fraudulent concept as it goes well beyond what the scriptures originally taught. You don't use pseudoscience to represent science just as you don't use pseudotheology to represent theology. What you have discovered is the misuse of theology to create a power structure. Theology doesn't hurt people, people hurt people.

Christianity has been comendeered by evil agents and must be reclaimed.