JW looking clarity followup

[Aractus]

Well again, I have never believed in hell and its pretty well established that the bible never speaks about a literal fiery hell.

Then explain this - I'll use the KJV since that's a version you will agree is authoritative:

Luke 16:19-31

19 There was a certain rich man, which was clothed in purple and fine linen, and fared sumptuously every day:
20 And there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, which was laid at his gate, full of sores,
21 And desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man's table: moreover the dogs came and licked his sores.
22 And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried;
23 And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.
24 And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.
25 But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented.
26 And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence.
27 Then he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my father's house:
28 For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment.
29 Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.
30 And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent.
31 And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.

This is a story that Jesus tells. Abraham and Moses are real people from the Old Testament, right? You've probably been told this is a parable - the problem with that is that people are never given names in parables. Also, Abraham is a real person, so what is he doing in a parable? But let's say that the Watchtower is right and that this is a parable. An unusual one unlike any others in the New Testament. Even if that is the case, the setting still has to be a real place because all other parables in the Bible are set on Earth and in a real setting. They'd have no weight to them if they weren't. So if every parable is set in a real place, and this is a parable, then it is set in a real place also. And from verse 23 that place is hell. Therefore hell is a real place.

[downbeatplumb]

"Tresspassers will be shot. Survivors will be shot again."

" Cold callers will be talked to at length about my beliefs. To find out more ring bell"

[robvalue]

Nice!

I'm so doing that.

[Aractus]

Door-knocking isn't trespassing, I don't even know why you idiots are bickering about that. A person who believes in their god but doesn't proselytise is a poor witness to their deity. If anything, you have more to complain about people who say they believe in the God of the Bible but don't go about actively witnessing to non-believers as they are instructed to do here:


Matthew 28:16-20

16 Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them.
17 And when they saw him, they worshipped him: but some doubted.
18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.
19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

[Tonus]

you can use the perceived misbehaving of god as a proof as to his non existence. Its just a faulty reasoning.

I agree, in and of itself it is not evidence of god's existence or lack thereof.  Some people do try to use it as such, in the sense that a god who acts in a contradictory or illogical manner cannot be real.  That makes sense, though it's more along the lines of hoping that such a being is only imaginary.  The god of the Bible is both unstoppable and unpredictable, and that's a scary combination.

Its a lot harder to stomach when you don't believe in the veracity of scriptures but Ray Franz did believe in them. Clearly his views were not so minor that he and others left because of them. Yes, they left.

That's disingenuous.  Franz did not want to leave the organization, nor did the others who were removed.  One (and perhaps others) wrote a heartfelt letter making clear that he and his wife had served the organization faithfully for decades and had not spread any sort of conflicting opinions.

They could have "conformed" and continued to be witnesses and kept their views to themselves but they were important enough that they couldn't.

After the whole incident, the organization sent a letter to the elders of every congregation instituting a new policy which effectively stated that just holding differing beliefs was sufficient to have someone disfellowshipped.  Once that happened, even keeping it to yourself would not have been enough, since you were now committing two wrongs: having differing views and hiding this fact.  You may wonder how they intended to enforce this, and my belief is that they did not intend to enforce it-- they were simply making their policy on differing views clear.  A JW was to believe what the organization's leaders told him to believe, and any dissenting thought was to be rejected.

And you only know one side of that story.

If that is true, then it's because the Watchtower organization has not been forthcoming.  Franz (and at least one or two others) gave their side of the story, after all.  Why would the organization not want to get the truth out, instead of simply removing people and giving as few details as possible?

[Won2blv]

Well again, I have never believed in hell and its pretty well established that the bible never speaks about a literal fiery hell.

Then explain this - I'll use the KJV since that's a version you will agree is authoritative:

Luke 16:19-31

19 There was a certain rich man, which was clothed in purple and fine linen, and fared sumptuously every day:
20 And there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, which was laid at his gate, full of sores,
21 And desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man's table: moreover the dogs came and licked his sores.
22 And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried;
23 And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.
24 And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.
25 But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented.
26 And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence.
27 Then he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my father's house:
28 For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment.
29 Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.
30 And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent.
31 And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.

This is a story that Jesus tells. Abraham and Moses are real people from the Old Testament, right? You've probably been told this is a parable - the problem with that is that people are never given names in parables. Also, Abraham is a real person, so what is he doing in a parable? But let's say that the Watchtower is right and that this is a parable. An unusual one unlike any others in the New Testament. Even if that is the case, the setting still has to be a real place because all other parables in the Bible are set on Earth and in a real setting. They'd have no weight to them if they weren't. So if every parable is set in a real place, and this is a parable, then it is set in a real place also. And from verse 23 that place is hell. Therefore hell is a real place.

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

---

you can use the perceived misbehaving of god as a proof as to his non existence. Its just a faulty reasoning.

I agree, in and of itself it is not evidence of god's existence or lack thereof.  Some people do try to use it as such, in the sense that a god who acts in a contradictory or illogical manner cannot be real.  That makes sense, though it's more along the lines of hoping that such a being is only imaginary.  The god of the Bible is both unstoppable and unpredictable, and that's a scary combination.

Its a lot harder to stomach when you don't believe in the veracity of scriptures but Ray Franz did believe in them. Clearly his views were not so minor that he and others left because of them. Yes, they left.

That's disingenuous.  Franz did not want to leave the organization, nor did the others who were removed.  One (and perhaps others) wrote a heartfelt letter making clear that he and his wife had served the organization faithfully for decades and had not spread any sort of conflicting opinions.

They could have "conformed" and continued to be witnesses and kept their views to themselves but they were important enough that they couldn't.

After the whole incident, the organization sent a letter to the elders of every congregation instituting a new policy which effectively stated that just holding differing beliefs was sufficient to have someone disfellowshipped.  Once that happened, even keeping it to yourself would not have been enough, since you were now committing two wrongs: having differing views and hiding this fact.  You may wonder how they intended to enforce this, and my belief is that they did not intend to enforce it-- they were simply making their policy on differing views clear.  A JW was to believe what the organization's leaders told him to believe, and any dissenting thought was to be rejected.

And you only know one side of that story.

If that is true, then it's because the Watchtower organization has not been forthcoming.  Franz (and at least one or two others) gave their side of the story, after all.  Why would the organization not want to get the truth out, instead of simply removing people and giving as few details as possible?

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. Business and religion are 2 separate things. So clearly this isn't 100% accurate illustration but the point is that Franz had some beliefs that he wouldn't let up. I doubt he'd write multiple books if not. I have a family member that says she was disfellowshipped because she "asked too many questions" but what she leaves out is that fact that she was cheating on her husband for years.  

[pocaracas]

So I'm late to the party... oh well...
Ramble mode!

Thanks for all the replies on the other thread I started. One poster recommended that maybe I start with just 1 point and go from there. The following is what rattles through my brain. Please remember that I'm not debating I'm sharing my thoughts...

Sharing your thoughts under the form of questions... how odd...

The argument against god that there is no proof

"against"... as if we need to be against Darth Vader to not believe that Darth exists for real...

My few thoughts on this are as follows, 1. Why would this almighty god be subjected to what a human demands as proof?

Why would this almighty god demand that humans acknowledge his existence without providing them some form of evidence for such existence?
Could humans have manufactured the concept of a god and then imposed that other humans just believe in its existence as a given?

2. Does gods creation not make him apparent?

How do you beat your wife? When did you rape your daughter? Where did you plant the H-bomb that's about to go off?
What do all these questions have in common?
The assumption that you did something and then proceed to ask about that something.
Your question falls under this category, too. Too many assumptions in it:
- There is a god
- There is a creation
- The god created something
- That something is apparent

Since we like to be intellectually honest, and I'm sure you do too, let's refrain from asking questions which are clearly poisoned.

3. If god popped up one day to make himself readily known as existing, would all people serve him any way?

Perhaps... depends on how the guy would make itself known and what sort of god it turned out to be.

4. If gods purpose as I have been taught, is that one day the earth will be a paradise like state with no evil. Back to its original Eden conditions. Proving that Satan, Adam, and Eve were wrong to reject gods sovereignty and humans are not capable of ruling themselves... how would it serve his purpose if people worshipped him out of fear of him killing them rather than from their hearts?

Well... let's look at that "if", first.
If god wants the planet Earth, that infinitesimal speck in the vastness of space, if he wants this tiny planet to be a paradise, then... why not just make it so in the first place?
Why all the wasted effort in creating the remaining near-infinite cosmos?
Why create flawed beings such as Adam and Eve and Satan... and all other humans... only to... what? have them worship that being out of all the love their bear for the being they know not that exists, but are told so by other people?!
It boggles the mind, just to think of it.

I know the last one will get a lot of flack

Flack gun!

---

---

[robvalue]

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?

[Brakeman]

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?

Without free will, god wouldn't have an excuse to torture little 8 year old girls in hell for all eternity.

[robvalue]

Ah, right! So this is all a front for his torture fetish. You're right, that's all he gets out of it. Justified torture.

There probably is no heaven, you just get born again so you can have another go at failing.