I thought we might open a new thread on this subject: Why did God kill Uzzah? I'll begin with this interesting commentary and finish with a few words of my own. "Notice how David took men with him to collect the ark, rather than allowing the Levites to bring it to him. That was a great mistake, since it ought never to have been put upon a cart, old or new. It was to be borne upon men’s shoulders, and carried by Levites only, and those of the family of Kohath (Exodus 25:12-14; Numbers 7:9), using the poles prescribed. Failing to follow God’s precise instructions would be seen as (a) not revering God’s words when He spoke them through those such as Moses, whom He had appointed; (b) having an independent attitude that might border on rebellion, i.e., seeing and acting on things from a worldly, rather than a spiritual, perspective; or (c) disobedience. Second, the ark had stayed for a period of time at Abinadab’s house (2 Samuel 6:3), where his sons, Uzzah and Ahio, may well have become accustomed to its presence. There’s an old saying, “familiarity breeds contempt,” that could apply in this case. Uzzah, having been around the ark in his own home, could very likely forget the holiness that it represented. There are times when we, too, fail to recognize the holiness of God, becoming too familiar with Him with an irreverent attitude. Third, the account tells us the oxen stumbled. The cart didn’t fall and neither did the Ark, just as the boat carrying Jesus and the disciples rocked fiercely in the storm, though it wasn’t necessarily in danger of sinking (Matthew 8:24-27). And yet, just as with the disciples who failed to put their faith in their Master, Uzzah, for a moment, felt it was his responsibility to save the integrity of God, and that our almighty God somehow needed Uzzah’s assistance. He presumed that, without his intervention, God’s presence would be dealt a blow. As Job asks, “Can you fathom the mysteries of God?” (Job 11:7). “His greatness no one can fathom” (Psalm 145:3). “His understanding no one can fathom” (Isaiah 40:28). Moses lost his right to enter the promised land because he felt his intervention was needed when he struck the rock, instead of speaking to it as God had commanded (Numbers 20:7-12). We need to listen carefully to what God has to say to us, and in obedience strive to do all He commands. Yes, God is loving and merciful, but He is also holy and He defends His holiness with His power, and affronts to His holiness sometimes bring about His holy wrath. “It is a dreadful thing to fall into the hands of the living God” (Hebrews 10:31)." (Source) ------- There was a recent conversation between @Timothy Kline and me on the differences between intent and actions in God's judgment. Timothy leaned toward the possibility of thought being judged as sin, while I felt action was needed to judge sin. In the end, as often happens, we might have opened our minds to the other's argument in allowing variance in our own understandings. With that said, what I have come to appreciate even more succinctly is our Lord's words here; "But what comes out of the mouth proceeds from the heart, and this defiles a person." Mth 15:18 The attitude introduced in the Garden by Satan was one of narcism. He thought he could determine for himself what God meant by His words. Satan introduced the ideology of personal truth into the human consciousness. This subject of God's justification isn't about His being able to tell others what to do but more so about a fundamental truth. The universe does not care what we think about it; it will still function as intended. This is shown in the example of French inventor Franz Reichelt, who famously jumped off of the Eiffel Tower in 1912 in a homemade parachute he was certain would function. He left a large crater in the ground. This simple example shows that no matter what we believe or how strongly we may believe it, the only thing that remains is that universal truth. Personal truth does not exist and will not be allowed to continue. From our hearts come our words and deeds. If we believe we are entitled through knowledge, we will be humbled. If we believe we know something already, we will be corrected, perhaps even harshly. No one has the right to have a conviction that contradicts the truth. If a speaker makes a statement, only the speaker can define its meaning. Anyone who believes they can interpret or view the other's words through their own experiences is showing that attitude invented in the Garden. If you claim the speaker did not intend to mean what they claimed they meant, you are calling them a liar. This form of communication is evil; it is a separation from God. Uzzah had become proud of his perceived position as curator of the Ark. Just as Moses was at the rock, those at the Tower of Babel, and Nebbi on the rooftop, when we boast about our positions and knowledge, we contradict that universal truth, that the universe does not need nor care what we think about it; it will still function as designed, with or without us. Uzzah (through his actions) believed he knew what was best rather than recognizing that arrogantly jumping off of the Eiffel Tower can kill you. A desire, when materialized, brings forth sin... "Then desire when it has conceived gives birth to sin, and sin when it is fully grown brings forth death." Jms 1:15 God's judgment is righteous and just, for it is truth. There is only one fundamental truth, and the lie is incompatible. Joshua
At the bottom of the story about Uzziah and the ark of the covenant, is the brute 'cause and effect' reality of a perfect God dealing with people born in sin by means of an external divine enactment codified as law, an exercise in futility to be sure - if ever there was one - if it weren't for the opportunity afforded to those having consented to this deal, to experience their moral helplessness and inability to perfect their character in the strength of their own will power, and thus to learn humility before Him. Jesus expressed surprise that a teacher of Israel did not know that the only way out of this subjection to futility would be for a person to be born anew - and this time without sin, and from Above, through one act of justification performed by God. Joh 3:3,10; Ro 8:20; 5:18 Yeah, I read that thread with great interest, agreeing with good points made by both sides of the argument. Yes, meaning self worship. I see Satan's challenging of God's words in the garden, not as an attempt at 'determining for himself what God meant by His words' - as if that would affect anything - but to try and misrepresent them before those whom he sought to mislead, and to call into question the righteousness of His actually enforcing them, before all onlookers in Heaven, some of whom also might have had ambitions of becoming gods themselves. For example: if a policeman were to tell me that he is going to write me a ticket, how is my assuming that he meant to say he is letting me go this time of any use to me? How is my delusion, or deliberate misinterpretation, changing the outcome in any way? So why would anyone want to assume something that wasn't meant? It makes no sense to me. Yes, that is what I call truth augmentation, which always comes unstuck when it bumps up against reality. Not loving truth leads to self deception. . . . which I see as 'natural law,' describing cause and effect, which God has chosen as the divine order of things, causing stability and predictability in all things. For those who have noticed: authority derives from truth, and truth is no respecter of persons, who therefore would do well to voluntarily subject themselves to it, before it humbles or breaks them; but fewer people by the day think it fair; hence Satan's opportunity to 'liberate' them from truth, and the 'tyranny' of cause and effect. Harry
People twist others' words all the time without an apparent outward gain. The gain is control and a sense of empowerment. They believe in personal truth and their right to control a narrative. It comes from a false sense of entitlement. I believe Satan believed what he said to Eve. He probably knew good and evil from seeing other conscious life on other planets eat from a tree and be killed off. So, it is possible he convinced himself that God did not have the right to choose right and wrong for others. Likely, Adam and Eve were not killed off because one of them (Satan) deceived her, and the courtroom began. (condensed version) Narcism is the belief that you know better what is going on than someone else. You believe you understand a situation better than all others around. So, if I were to say I like steak, someone might take that as I don't like chicken. But I didn't say that, did I? People do that because they think they know something already; they think they are smarter than they are and entitled to believe as they wish. Hence, the entrance of personal truth into the human conscience. Narcism doesn't have to be rational; it clearly is not. You will not find a rational argument for twisting others' words because there is none. The rationale of the narcist is to make themselves look good at the expense of others. It's to build themselves up (so they believe). The lie in the Garden was Satan's interpretation of God's words. Only God can define His words; only the speaker can define themselves. Anytime someone interprets someone else's words without accepting the speaker's definition, this is the lie developed in the Garden. We have nearly completely purged our family of this ideology; however, it does pop up occasionally, and it offers the opportunity to discuss it again. Let me provide a recent example. We read the Bible together, and one night, we were reading Exodus and the bitter water in Marah when Moses threw a log into it and made it sweet. We discussed its meaning, and I took the opportunity to show how the world interprets the Bible. We discussed how the bitter water could represent sin, and the wood the stake on which Christ died, etc... I said, "Sure, one could view God's Word in such a way, but unless you find His words expressly explaining that as the definition of that event, you cannot accept that interpretation. Only the speaker can define their meaning." People believe they can interpret others' words and do not allow others to define their own meaning, and they do this with the Bible as well. That attitude will be routed out in all of God's kingdom. Joshua
In all my life here - and mixing with people - I have only ever once met a person that was a gratuitous liar, who did so for no apparent reason; so I believe that those type of people do exist, but they are rare, at least in my environment. Now that kind of person is way more common, but twisting people's words is just one tool they may employ to get their way, because there are far more effective ways to manipulate people, such as using the empathy trap or appealing to their pride and so on. People who are like that are easy to detect and avoid, in fact, Scripture tells us to do so; but that may come at a cost to us by missing out on advantages that dealing with them could have for us, so there is that possibility of self infliction. While having to deal with sociopaths and narcissists cannot entirely be avoided, it certainly can be majorly minimized, if one is prepared to pay the price for it. That is why they only fool others who are like them, as the saying goes, water finds its own level. The entire education system as well as the media and everything else is run by these children of Satan, which is why most people have been conditioned to go by outward appearances, because that is how this world functions; hence the call to be no part of the world. I don't believe Jehovah created any other 'worlds' besides the spirit realm, otherwise, why did He not address the issue of rebellion there, in order to set a precedent, like He is doing now with this spectacle before angels and men? It is Satan and his children that are behind the promotion of extraterrestrial life and travel to the stars etc, in order to get mankind on his side. I think that the reason for God creating the physical realm was so as to play out the alternative to doing things His way, because there was no way of acting this out properly in Heaven where trouble was already brewing. Harry
Hi, the right to control a narrative is very powerful I think. If one control a narrative, they become the source of truth right? Forums are the perfect example. If one can control a narrative then they can push their truth over others like e-watchman. I see that he controls a narrative and there are those that accept it
It's possible God did address the issue of rebellion on other planets; the inhabitants died like He said they would. It's likely things were allowed to continue here because Satan deceived Eve, and God's right to rule was raised. The number of possible worlds with conscious life is mathematically astronomical. I've heard many explanations for how the angels could have known good and evil, but the simplest is that other lifeforms sinned on other planets of their own doing. That's just my opinion anyway... Why create so many worlds if not to populate them? Interstellar travel would be highly likely for an advanced society. That spirit of "What's over the next hill?" is engrained into the human psyche. Saying there was "no way" of acting this out in Heaven seems restricting to God. And to create a universe over trillions of years old to act out this problem on one planet seems overly simplistic. The universe is larger than we can comprehend and may even be infinite. It seems to me this is going on on this planet because it occurred on this planet. Again, that's just me. They are certainly everywhere... Joshua
I cannot stand and do not tolerate those who control other's narratives. We should all have our own voice and speak for ourselves. When someone dares to assume they can define someone else's words for them, they endorse that personal truth ideology introduced in the Garden of Eden. Some believe they have been made perfect already and speak for God. In my summation, we are not made perfect yet, and we speak for ourselves, not for God. We purge our household of that entitlement attitude, and no one walks around thinking they know everything already. We actively exercise admitting we are wrong immediately and have conversations about such matters regularly—quite often, in fact, to keep it forefront. Accusers are the kind of people who will read into others' words what they themselves are doing. They blame others because they believe everyone acts as they themselves do. People can't seem to see past their own noses to realize everyone reacts and thinks differently. They believe they know why you say and do the things you do better than you do. In our home, we practice empathy. No one may assume what the other is saying; only the speaker can define their meaning. The words used are irrelevant; only the intent matters. No one can speak for another; when you do so, you are wrong. When you approach communication in this way, you begin to understand others for who they are, as they can have their own voice. If I were to say, "Honey I was thinking, maybe we should start eating better." My wife could assume I was calling her fat, for she could have thought I would not have said what I did unless that's what I meant. You see, that form of interpretative communication was invented in the Garden of Eden. That is the lie, the introduction of evil. Had I meant that, that's what I would have said. I have no problem speaking my mind. Instead, a wife may ask, "Why do you say that?" And I might reply, "I've been reading about the health benefits of eating a more balanced diet. I am concerned about our family's health." You see, the speaker's intent was to protect his family and do what he was supposed to be doing, but if the wife had reacted with assumption and innuendo, she would have been acting with evilness. Another scenario that might come up is others asking, "Why didn't you just say it in a way I would understand?" This, too, is a fallacy and impossible. No one is a mind reader and will know what you do not understand. The only thing we can do is ourselves. You can't tell others what to do or say; the only thing you can do is yourself, and it's the listener's job to understand the speaker properly. Jesus told a crowd to eat His flesh and drink His blood because He knew the crowd would assume they knew what He was saying. And they left, including many disciples. It does not matter what words are used; what matters is that it's our responsibility to understand the speaker, not the speaker's responsibility that you understand them. This is the same issue the world has with understanding the Bible. People believe they can read into Scripture whatever they wish and interpret God's words through their own eyes and experience. The problem is they are not the ones speaking. If you wish to understand God's Word, you allow Him to speak for Himself. Joshua
I agree. Alvy said that Watchman changed his words, or deleted them when he banned him from the e-jehovahswitnesses site. Isn't that essentially endorsing his personal truth introduced in the Garden of Eden. Do you think that makes him a false prophet?
Its a big universe, there has to be other life on other planets, but that is assuming something I cannot know. If the inhabitants of another planet rebelled as well, why would they die and not be given a chance like Adam and Eve were? God would have given the other planet the same command to fill their earth and subdue it. If they rebelled, wouldn't they also be given a chance? Women have been made safe through childbearing, and the same ransom for us would apply for them. Doesn't that mean that Jesus would have to die for them as well? I don't know this hurts my brain to try and figure that out. Too complicated.
Perhaps because they were not deceived by one of them like Adam and Eve were. God had to vindicate His name here.
Could it be that lots of people do know better than others - on whatever subject matter - but are resented for it by those who have been brought up with communitarian ideals of everybody being equal, and a corresponding hatred for meritocracy as being unfairly discriminatory, all wrapped up in a virtue signalling form of humility, resulting in the tyranny of low expectations that has been foisted upon today's snow flake world by the people of the lie, evidenced as just another, less obvious, sign of the same narcissism of resentful underachievers? Could the pride assumed in one sharing knowledge actually be a projection by the ignorant, who would solely be motivated by such if he were the one knowing and sharing? Could the repeating of the same experiment again and again, while expecting a different outcome, be considered the very definition of crazy? Do you think that God is playing an indefinite game of 'win some, lose some' with intelligent life He brought into being in His Image? The last line in Ballad of Hollis Brown touches on this subject. If someone is deceived against better knowledge, where does moral culpability for the outcome lie: the one allowing the deceit, or the one being deceived, do you think? How would these worlds and such life come about apart from God creating them? Could a moral ethic, other than what we have revealed to us in Christianity, exist in other worlds, that could also be termed just? If with 'knowing' evil we mean not just contemplation of a theoretical construct, but the actual experience of it in life, then there must have been things said and done in heaven by some against others that fit this designation. Why does it have to be other lifeforms on other planets, when we already know what inhabitants of the spirit realm are up to and capable of? Did this rebellion in heaven just come out of the blue, or were there means missing to fully express it, like a murderer living in a place with only blunt knives as weapons? For 'free will' to be actually free and have meaning, there would have to be suitable means to exercise and express it, even if used against the very Source of one's existence, resulting in its negation. To argue with one's Maker would be bad enough, but those who do so invariably cause problems to others, which is why God has to act on behalf of those loyal to Him more so than just for His own dignity. Wouldn't that cheapen life, like when all gravel on earth were diamonds? How about to humble arrogant humans, and never let them forget how insignificant they are, and fortunate to have been made by a God that is very conscious of the exceeding privilege inherent in His Position? What if an advance in morality here would obviate the thought of wanting to leave this place? If humans, who were created through Jesus, were to populate other planets, and their offspring, rather than listening to, and believing, stories told them by those who experienced the present wicked system and survived Armageddon - what if those never having personally lived out the alternative to God's way, what if they demand the same 'right' and 'privilege' that was accorded to us - how could Jesus ever die for them again and redeem them as He did for us, and how would that be fair on them? Do you really want to live in a world where you forever will have to go on exterminating some of your beloved sons and daughters, simply because they want to experience for themselves all the 'fun' you were having, while living your life in sin here before God put an end to it? Remember the Hebrew poet: 'There's seven people dead, on a South Dakota farm, there's seven people dead on a South Dakota farm; somewhere's in a distance there's seven new people born.' And so Satan invited Eve on a little sight seeing trip from which most of her children will never return. It certainly would make it look like the solving of this problem was of utmost importance to Him, and with problem I mean, what if free will were ever used to the detriment of others, including the Creator of it, and all living beings? Since rebellion broke out among those a little higher than humans, and questions might be raised if God, the very One ultimately transgressed against, were to be Judge, Jury and Executioner, it would seem like a logical thing - with the benefit of hindsight - for Him to create a dimension with beings having the means for procreation, in order to become like Him in having sons and daughters of their own, to then be suitably qualified to act as impartial judges over the rebels in both realms, especially because of their being given total independence even from God Himself, due to His bestowing immortality on them, so that there can be no charge of bias as to their judgments. If God's aim in life were to fill an infinity of space in the physical realm with humans, why did He not keep on doing the cookie cutter thing in Heaven, pumping out trillions of angels to eternity, a realm with infinitely more space than the physical? To me, all sorts of people speak for God all the time - the God of Truth - Whose word on their lips it is my job to discern, in accord with the Spirit of Truth, vouchsafed to us by His Son, who is The Truth. What if people had a God-given, inalienable right to assume whatever they like about what others are saying? Why should one man's obsession with what others think he is saying infringe on their choice to be free of his dictates? Couldn't that be seen as narcissistic? Isn't that the very free speech censorship that the regressive left is trying to foist on society when they run out of good arguments? People are in a rush to be offended when their faith is stretched at hearing something that cannot be appropriated except by first believing, as in humbly assenting to what can only be revealed by reason of faith, and toward faith. Ro 1:17 People stumbled over Christ's illustrations since it was not given them to understand, due to their unreceptive heart for truth. Mat 13:11 Harry
Seeing Satan's children are behind Hollywood sci-fi, it is likely that he used the idea of populating other planets to entice more angels to follow him, so that they might become gods over these other worlds. By contrast, Jehovah's thinking on the matter can be deduced by the fact that, although appointing immortals that are higher than the holy angels over the earth to rule and judge, this is only a temporary arrangement, which will be concluded at the end of the 1000 years, when all authority reverts back to Him for all eternity. After the 1000 years, nobody can ever be redeemed again for going against Jehovah, or else it would be deja vu all over again - eternal rinse and repeat, and all the suffering that Jehovah, Jesus and mankind went through would just be a farce. As the poem goes: 'There are many here among us, who feel that life is but a joke, but you and I we've been through that, and this is not our fate, so let us not talk falsely now, the hour is getting late.' All Along the Watchtower Harry
The problem with the narcissist isn't really about being correct or incorrect; it's about the know-it-all attitude. It's that attitude that you are better than someone else for whatever reason. It keeps one from being able to learn truths and presents itself through an inflated ego. We need to learn how to learn. We are humble and open to the scientific method when we constantly imagine we could be wrong. Case in point: If one believes there is good vs. evil in the modern political makeup, such as between the Left and Right, they could apply Scripture to such strongly entrenched beliefs instead of just recognizing both sides are contrary to God. (1Jhn 5:19) I do not believe God cares anything about Right or Left political ideologies. I think you've missed the point of my thought experiment. If there had been other conscious lives on other planets that sinned, they would have just died. Had Satan not deceived Eve, and she still sinned, we would not be here, and she and Adam would have been destroyed. The only reason this was allowed to go on here is Satan deceived Eve, and God's right to rule was raised. There's no way to know for sure, but that was my original intent. I would say they both hold responsibility for their own actions. I would say God would have created them. It would be my opinion that this is the only planet forever that would know good and evil, and that evil will never be known by any other lifeform in the universe. After this courtroom, any dissenters will just be dispatched, destroyed forever. So yes, in the future, life will be destroyed if they sin. I've never met parents with many children who said more children cheapened the others. That is how I read Heb 8-10. After the 1000 years, when we are made perfect, no sacrifice for sin will be offered. And yes, further life that sins will be killed off forever. That's just how I read it. That's what would have happened to Eve if Satan had not deceived her. It's my opinion God was not aware they had sinned, hence why He asked them. In my opinion they are speaking their truth. Everyone is teaching something different. There is only one truth, so which one of them are speaking for God? I wouldn't want to claim I speak for God and then Him look at me and ask me who I thought I was, because I was wrong. People believe God's Spirit teaches them, but we deceive ourselves, too. So which part of you is speaking for God, that part that is true or the part that you've deceived yourself on? It's just me, but I will never claim to speak for God. I speak for myself based on my current understanding of God's Will. This whole notion that God's Spirit makes us perfect today is hogwash to me, and is not based in truth. That's just my opinion on the matter. Wasn't it God who told mankind to spread throughout the earth? In my opinion, that is evil and what Satan introduced in the Garden. You would be calling them a liar. The narcissist tells others what they mean; they control the narratives of others. That is evilness to its core. I despise anyone who assumes my words other than my original intent. That was not given to people by my God. That's not the God I serve. That god who introduced that ideology spoke to Eve in the Garden when he assumed to know what God meant by not eating the tree and assumed his personal truth of the true God's words. Only Jehovah had the right to define His meaning of why Adam and Eve could not eat from the Tree of Knowledge. I'm not sure if you have much experience with them, but I grew up with narcissists, sociopaths, and psychopaths. I know how they operate. I don't care what others think. If I am going to waste my breath, someone can attempt to understand what I am saying, or we'll no longer speak. It's as simple as that. Once someone wishes to read into my words something I do not mean, then I am out. In my opinion, this form of communication is evil and will be destroyed forever. We've rid our household of such ideologies, and there is peace. No, intent is fact. Don't confuse that with being correct. One can be completely wrong factually and still be 100% correct in their intent. Only the speaker can define their meaning regardless of the factual nature of their intent. I don't care anything about Right vs Left; I care about Theocracy. (Yes, I'm well-versed in politics though.) Being the only one who can define one's meaning has nothing to do with censorship. If someone else tries to change my narrative, that is censorship. If you attempt to interpret my intent other than my true meaning, that is censorship. Free will requires I have my own voice. I choose what I mean. I speak for me, and you speak for you. Anything more than that is from Satan. (Mth 5:37) Joshua
True; hence why I tend to let people have their superiority, but still try to discern where they might be right, and where I can learn something from them, however limited that might be due to their wrong attitude or motive. To me there is only right or wrong, true or false, regarding anything of importance - and then there is the matter of talk versus performance or action; hence, the 'right' has overwhelmingly more things right and true than the 'left,' even if they are more talk than action, but the godless left is totally wrong and false, and on top of that, always acting upon their evil ideology, making them the greater hypocrites for their pretended care about 'social justice' and the planet, which is just a farce. Looking at things hypothetically, what you say is true, but what would be the point to starting over again every time the first couple sinned, as Adam and Eve manifestly did? Worse still, what if they were faithful, but later on some of their offspring would rebel against them and God, so that those who were obedient would have to suffer, and perhaps even get killed by the wayward ones - what sort of mess that would have been? Which is why I believe God inverted the default of assuming that all of His intelligent creation here on earth - as were those in heaven - would naturally want to honor and obey Him, to subjecting us all to futility, by alienating us from Himself through the sin of Adam and Eve that He allowed us all to be infected with, as if that were what we all wanted. This is the inherent dilemma of a Father bringing intelligent, free will endowed life into existence, to know whether a person actually wants to exist, before causing him to be, and then to anticipate whether such a one would want to be subject to Him and not cause trouble for others. I see Eve 100% morally responsible for her action, against full knowledge of the consequences, by exercising her free will without coercion, to be deceived by her own desire; whereas God bears zero moral responsibility for allowing such a lame temptation to take place. Since those entering into eternal life at the end of the 1000 years are ones who have been subject to - and overcome - the final test by Satan, how would anyone born after that point in time be tested as to loyalty, since Satan will then no longer exist? Will there be regular execution parties held throughout eternity if procreation were to continue after the end of the 1000 years, and an equal percentage of new ones were to naturally fall away? By the way, I do not believe in the 'nurture' myth - as in nurture versus nature - according to which people turn bad due to adverse experiences in life, as will be proven when those who lived through the 1000 years of paradise, and then turn against God at the end of it, are said to be as numerous as the sand of the sea, and where the same ratio of good people to bad people would continue to hold true throughout eternity, if procreation were to continue. Re 20:8 I know that JWs don't, but I believe in 1 Joh 2:27: ' And as for you, the anointing that you received from him remains in you, and you do not need anyone to be teaching you; but, as the anointing from him is teaching you about all things, and is true and is no lie, and just as it has taught you, remain in union with him.' Yes, the earth; but Satan wanted her to be like God in heaven on her terms. I don't believe that Satan assumed to know what God meant by not eating from the tree, but that he knew exactly what He meant, and what God would do; he just thought that he could outsmart Him by turning the first human couple against Him, and then quickly getting them to eat from the tree of life, to put God on the horns of a dilemma by having to go back on His word. Once he failed in that endeavor, he tried to tempt Jesus, and is still trying to turn the chosen ones against Him. I don't see any issue of God having the right - or not having the right - to define His meaning; He just spoke and meant what He said without there being any ambiguity, or need to try and define what He meant, but both Adam and Eve simply disobeyed and turned against Him, that's all there is to it. Instead of a 'defining of meaning,' I see God having the right to keep whatever tree in the garden He likes off limits to Adam and Eve, by simply telling them the consequences for eating from it, and then leaving it up to them to comply or not. There is something called acting in good faith, or, on the flip side, acting in bad faith. But acting in bad faith is not to be confused with confronting someone with the logical consequences of their position, would you agree with that important distinction? In their intent to be factually right? Why, sure; otherwise they would be hypocritical about their endeavor. Do you think it possible that people might be apprehensive engaging with you for fear of saying something that you might view as an attempt at interpreting your meaning the wrong way? Harry
Nope, that apprehension would be from someone not used to proper communication. In our household if someone misunderstands you, you tell them that they misunderstood you. At that point the one who assumed has a choice, they can correct their assumption and except your definition of the words you used, or they are calling you a liar. And no one lies in our home. You've seen the type of people who will call you a liar by saying, "No one would say that unless they meant this." Or, "These words mean this, not what you say they mean." Or, "You said this over here therefore you contradict yourself." Etc... They attempt to prove their wrong assumptions through further assumptions. The words used are irrelevant, only the intent matters. Only the speaker can define their meaning, or you'll be having a literal cup of Christ's blood. When people are open and honest and don't assume by allowing people to define themselves, it's the healthiest relationship you will ever have. You will truly understand others, and they will understand you. If I create a robot, do I not have the right to do with it what I choose? If it disobeyes and harms someone, I might destroy it and create another. I might create and destroy many, depending on their actions. For arguments sake... The ones who sinned are removed. After millions of years the events of the past are no longer remembered. (Ish 65:17) Just as undesirable weeds are rooted out of a garden, so will be the universe, in my opinion. Maintenence is the key... Satan had not sinned when God gave the command to not eat of the tree. Satan does not need to exist for life to choose to disobey God. Perfect life can sin... Another satan could arise in the future, but the courtroom has already occurred here, God has already proven He has the right to define His words and intent. If another satan appears in the future he would just be destroyed immediately. Heb 10: If you sin after becoming perfect, no sacrifice for sin is offered, you die. Was that scripture intended to say that the Spirit would give you perfect knowledge without you being wrong in any of your understandings? If you can be wrong in only one area, can you say you speak for God? Satan believed he could speak for God. It doesn't matter why a narcissist twists others words. They can believe what they say or not, both occur with a narcissist. Whether Satan misunderstood God or not is irrelevant, it was Satan's responsibility to understand God's true intent and convey that. Instead he chose to interpret and determine God's narritive for Him, and then proceeded to portray that false narritive to Eve. He interpreted God's words as he wished, regardless of his irrelevant intentions for doing so. But as we know the narcissist intention is self glory. In order to convey His intent of keeping a tree to Himself God had to use words with Adam and Eve. The intent of the speaker must be understood as the speaker intended, or one is calling them a liar by interpreting them how one wishes. It was Eve's job to understand God's true intent. God meant that she would die if she ate from it, and she should have understood that. She chose to believe the lie, that false narritive of God's intent. Only if the listener understands the speaker. You cannot confront me with a logical consequence of my position if you misunderstand my position. When someone does that it makes them look intellectually challenged. I see it all of the time. If I am going to confront someone else with paradoxes in their thinking, I guarantee you it will be through their eyes. If I misunderstand them I will correct my understanding of their view. People don't listen when you correct them on your view, they think they know already. You cannot come to truth without understanding others views, and you cannot show paradoxes in others views without understanding their intent. The one who assumes is always wrong, you cannot read minds. When someone attempts to correct me by assuming something I do not believe, they are having their own conversation and lack empathy. One must correct my view through my view, not through how it contradicts their own... At which point its my responsibility to understand the speaker. If I correct someone in their misunderstanding of my view and they do not except my true intent they are calling me a liar, and I do not associate with such people. And yet some people can't even see past their own nose to understand others views; such people are just as lost, and I am out in both cases. I do not care what others think of me, and I have no desire to prove anything to anyone. Joshua
This cannot be done with people who see their view and intent as more important than truth, which is the very definition of what a narcissist is. Harry
This is true, and unfortunately, we must all fight this tendency at all times. The more one recognizes it and purges oneself of it, the closer one will come to allowing God's Word to speak for itself. As a consequence, our human relationships will grow. We are all susceptible to that inherited imperfection, but understanding the issue is the first step to fighting it. We cannot assume we know everything already... We have a saying in our home, "I could be wrong." Just like with math, someone will always be more versed in a subject than we are. Someone will know the truth, while another will spout their own assumptions. Only the one who truly understands will know who is who. Joshua
What do you make of this latest JW dot org headline article, Why Is There So Much Hatred?—What Does the Bible Say? https://www dot jw dot org/en/library/series/more-topics/why-so-much-hatred/ Quote: "Hate speech, hate crimes, ethnic violence, and war dominate the news. “Fueled by the conflict between Israel and Gaza and stoked by extremists, hate speech has spiked on social media platforms.”—The New York Times, November 15, 2023. “Since the 7th of October, the world has seen a sharp and worrying increase in hate, hate speech and hate crimes.”—Dennis Francis, president of the United Nations General Assembly, November 3, 2023. Hateful speech, violence, and war are not new. Yet the Bible explains that the hatred we see today is significant. Hatred—A mark of our times The Bible reveals two reasons why hate is common today. However, the Bible also reveals that God will soon eliminate the root causes of hatred." Unquote. ---------------------------- But what is the definition of 'hate' today? What is a 'hate crime,' and what is considered 'hate speech' nowadays, if not speaking the truth about those who hate the truth, and the 'protected classes' they have created and enshrined in our laws? But according to JWs, the incoming kingdom they proclaim will 'soon eliminate all such causes of hate' - by getting rid of those speaking the truth. How is their, perhaps, not meaning to say this, going to disabuse those listening to them of the deception that will cause them to view the revived NWO as God's promised kingdom, that all the earth will then follow with admiration? I am certain that they will charge me with misrepresenting their message; but what am I supposed to do? How could I ever prove them wrong from within their paradigm? Should I not notice the dire implications of their message, in order not to offend them, while watching both them and those listening to them going to hell in a hand basket? But that is the flip side of people wanting to define their own reality, something only God is capable of doing. Harry
I don't really have an opinion on it. I believe we'll see them adopt apostasy next, and I think they'll be gone by the time the NWO comes around. Joshua
I think they will become an important part of the 'incoming kingdom,' at which point they will fulfill what Christ predicted, namely, that 'brother will hand brother over to death, and children their parents,' because then even those whom we were sure are on our side will fail the hour of test, and think that the 'incoming kingdom' is from Jehovah; just as they believed that the 'magic potion' was from Him to keep them in the land of the living. Deluded people like that are highly dangerous. Harry