JW looking clarity followup

[Won2blv]

So riddle me this:

God doesn't want robots, apparently. So he gives us free will. But that means we can sin. So he offers us the solution by beating the shit out of himself for a bit. That's great.

Now we can get into heaven. There's no sin in heaven. But that means we have no free will in heaven! So he ends up with robots after all, for almost all of each of our individual existences.

So he epic fails again. He never seems to think things through.

Why bother with this crap if he is going to end up with robots in heaven anyway?

So first of all, your reasoning is like someone that is anti evolution explaining how they believe it. "So what you're telling me is that I use to be a monkey, but there are not half monkey half men walking around are there!"

Again, the bible doesn't teach that we go to heaven. Why would god create a habitable earth just so people could end up in heaven. And there is sin in heaven. A 3rd of the angels became demons according to the bible. 

Also, I have never believed that Jesus was god. I don't know exactly what a perfect world with perfect humans would be like. I like the term, relative perfection. Maybe there will still be mistakes but they would be relative to the seriousness of the offense. But one thing for sure that I have always believed is, there will be no doubt that humans can rule themselves. 

---

Yes I do believe it was a parable. Jesus used many parables. As far it having to be a real place, well, I don't think Jesus believed that camels could actually go through an eye of a needle. Or that one could drink a camel. Jesus used hyperbole in his teaching. Lazarus was a common mans name, like John. Abraham was a well known and respected figure. He was making the point that the hypocritical Pharisees won't be persuaded under any circumstances

So then certain doesn't mean certain then? It means "imaginary" it means "not certain" but it certainly doesn't mean certain?

I think Jesus was making the point that he believed that people go to a literal hell to atone for their sins.

I feel about this the same I feel about the trinity. There are scriptures that you could read that seem to make Jesus and God the same being, but if you add up all the scriptures that clearly differentiate the two then it can be reasonably assumed that the other scriptures are figures of speech. The same is true with this account. It could be construed as an allusion to hell. The greek word that was translated hell was also used in Revelation 20 when it was prophesied that it would be cast into the lake of fire. So why would the eternal torment be cast into the eternal torment? It being an illustration is the only logical conclusion. Also, I believe that the word hell is more likely referring to the grave of man. Much like the word Sheol in hebrew

---

I go back to my Starbucks illustration... a board member could love Starbucks. Love everything about it but still think that they should change some things concerning their business. That member could be forced to leave if they put more energy in changing the company rather than helping it.

I think it's a good idea to clarify what happened to Franz.  Franz was not removed as part of the purge that occurred in 1980 as part of the fallout from the 1975 mess.  Although some accused him of apostasy, he was not disfellowshipped: after a three-hour inquiry he was allowed to resign from the governing body (for "health reasons") and allowed to serve as an elder or ministerial servant in a congregation in Alabama.

In the fall of 1980 the society sent a letter to overseers telling them that apostates did not need to be discussing their beleifs with others in order to be removed.  Just believing 'false doctrines' was sufficient to warrant removal.  Even so, Franz was not disfellowshipped as a result, which means that he was not sharing his views with anyone.

In the spring of 1981 a member of Franz' Alabama congregation (and a personal friend of his) disassociated himself from the WT organization.  Franz did not end his association with this man (who was his employer at his secular job) and in the fall of 1981 the WT organization changed the policy on associating with people who had voluntarily left the organization.  Two months later, Franz was disfellowshipped for maintaining a freindship with this man.

Imagine a board member at Starbucks who holds differing views on how to run the company, but does not make waves and continues to serve the company faithfully.  Under pressure, he is forced to step down but retains voting rights as a stockholder.  Now the board conspires to change the company rules and regulations in order to find a loophole that they can use to force him to surrender his stock and finally be rid of him completely.  Eventually they do just that, and he is no longer a part of the company in any way.

Perhaps this doesn't seem so bad, that a group that wields absolute authority over its membership can change policy time and again in order to deal with someone they can't seem to pin anything on.  I think it's pretty scary and not the sort of thing that I'd expect out of a religious group that I might want to be associated with.

Perhaps you're right. But I choose to not take Raymond Franzs words as absolute. EVERYONES memories change after the fact. And especially when they feel spurned. I am open to acknowledging that my beliefs are incorrect, but I purposely chose to avoid ex-jehovah's witness boards. Clearly, Franz was not just lovingly trying to keep quiet and low key. Something more was there. I have read his account, and I choose to take it at face value. I go back to my family member that "asked too many questions" She has a right to tell her story as she sees it. But I know that she leaves out a lot of facts that don't look good for her