JW looking clarity followup

[Aractus]

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.

[Tonus]

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.

[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

[robvalue]

Right well...

Your opinions seem to contradict the opinions of a huge number of other Christians. Although I do respect you a lot for owning your beliefs and opinions. I get tired of people being unable to distinguish between beliefs and facts.

It's up to you if you want to discuss it further. As someone who doesn't believe any of it from either your perspective or other Christians who are opposed to you, it's very baffling how you can't all agree. And since neither side has any evidence at all there's no way to know who is right, if anyone.

That's just my opinion Don't feel you have to respond if you don't want to.

Why do you believe these things, and how come they aren't just different but entirely opposite to millions of Christians who worship the same God?

[bennyboy]

1. Why would this almighty god be subjected to what a human demands as proof?

If he's undetectable and unobservable, then who cares if there's an "almighty" God or not?

2. Does gods creation not make him apparent?

Circular logic is illogical. The existence of things only makes a creator apparent if you have evidence that creator caused the things to exist. So provide some evidence.

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

Not while he allows people's loved ones, especially children, suffer needlessly. If someone could save my son, and refused to because he was testing my free will, I'd have little use for him. How much more so for an impotent or unwilling God?

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?

You ask too many random hypotheticals. What if aliens made humans to farm the Earth, but then the aliens got wiped out by microbial lifeforms, leaving the Earthlings with vague ideas about "gods"? And if so, what if one man found the body of an alien, unlocking the secret to eternal life, and deliberately arranged for his own crucifiction to prove he was "God"? What if the universe is a magic space monkey's giant poop?

I'm sure you'll say all these are stupid ideas I pulled out of my ass, right? Now consider this-- that's how the Bible looks to non Christians.

[Aractus]

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

1. Can you read Greek nicanica123?

2. Jesus and God are not the same being. So explain this then, and just for you I'll quote from the NWT:

Genesis 1:17: When Abraham got to be ninety-nine years old, then Jehovah appeared to Abraham and said to him "I am God Almighty. Walk before me and prove yourself faultless.
Isaiah 13:6: "Howl, YOU people, for the day of Jehovah is near! As a despoiling from the Almighty it will come.
Revelation 1:8: "I am Alpha and Omega," says Jehovah God, "the One who is and who was and who is coming, the Almighty."
Revelation 4:8b:  "Holy, holy, holy is Jehovah God, the Almighty, who was and who is and who is coming."
Revelation 11:17: "We thank you, Jehovah God, the Almighty, the One who is and who was, because you have taken your great power and begun ruling as king.
Revelation 22:12-13: "Look! I am coming quickly, and the reward I give is with me, to render to each one as his work is. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end.
Isaiah 44:6: "This is what Jehovah has said, the King of Israel and the Repurchaser of him, Jehovah of armies, 'I am the first and the last, and besides me there is no God.'

According to those verses, Jehovah is the "first and the last", the "the Almighty", "who was and who is and who is to be", "the alpha and the omega", and "the beginning and the end".

But according to these passages Jesus is the First and the Last:

Revelation 1:17b-18: And he laid his right hand upon me and said: "Do not be fearful.. I am the First and the Last, and the living one; and I became dead, but, looik! I am living forever and ever, and I have the keys of death and Hades.
Revelation 2:8: "And to the angel of the congregation in Smyrna write: These are the things that he says, 'the First and the Last,' who became dead and came to life [again].

So then who is the First and the Last? Is it Jesus (as in Revelation 1:17 and 2:8) or is it Jehovah (as in Isaiah 41:4, 44:6, 48:12, and Revelation 22:12-13)?

[robvalue]

Bennyboy: That's right. It's what it comes down to in the end: assumptions. If you are interested in the truth, you should make as few assumptions as realistically possible. Assuming the existence of things yet undemonstrated, especially something so contrary to our experiences as a god, is leaping straight to the conclusion; or so near to it as to make no difference. The point is that it seems impossible to me to reason yourself into believing religion; which is why I think the real reasons for belief are generally emotional and/or the result of indoctrination. And why it's so hard to try and reason people out of it, even when the line of reasoning seems solid.

But as usual, I can't just assume I am right And I'm always prepared to hear how someone does explain their reasons in a way that doesn't make massive assumptions. And people may value their beliefs being comfortable over them being true. That is their choice to make.

[Tonus]

Perhaps you're right. But I choose to not take Raymond Franzs words as absolute.

I take no issue with that stance, it's a rightly cautious one.  But the timeline I gave in my last post is mostly independent of Franz's view of what happened.  It gives a very strong impression that the organization made changes to rules and policies specifically to find cause to remove a person.  Combined with the policy regarding shunning those who are disfellowshipped it is a very effective way of keeping dissenting voices out of the group.  That is considered a positive outcome in the context of a godly people shielding itself from satanic influence.  But outside of a religious context, we tend to view such isolation as a dangerous thing.  And even within religions, the silencing of dissention is only a good thing when it benefits the individual's group, but seen as a dangerous thing in any other religious organization.  Which is to say, you are required to take the governing body's word as absolute, even though you know that at least one of its members turned out to be an apostate.

That alone should make one suspicious at the least.  The truth as given by the greatest intellect in existence should not be so easy to twist or corrupt that we must be shielded from it by... fellow human beings.  Especially when they show that they're just as fallible as anyone else, yet demand unquestioning obedience.

[Won2blv]

Right well...

Your opinions seem to contradict the opinions of a huge number of other Christians. Although I do respect you a lot for owning your beliefs and opinions. I get tired of people being unable to distinguish between beliefs and facts.

It's up to you if you want to discuss it further. As someone who doesn't believe any of it from either your perspective or other Christians who are opposed to you, it's very baffling how you can't all agree. And since neither side has any evidence at all there's no way to know who is right, if anyone.

That's just my opinion Don't feel you have to respond if you don't want to.

Why do you believe these things, and how come they aren't just different but entirely opposite to millions of Christians who worship the same God?

Well, surprise surprise, but we believe that the other religions just have it wrong. It is interesting to me that in my recent agnosticism, hearing a lot of criticism of religion that I feel JW's aren't worthy of. And even some of the ones that they are can be argued. Like blood transfusions. I have had a hard time with this but I find it interesting to read articles about the benefits of not accepting blood transfusions. Or the fact that there are hundreds of bloodless surgery wings at hospitals. I don't think they developed those just for the few witnesses in America. Jw's simply believe that Satan is in control of the world and humankind in general. Not like they are his robots and minions but more in a manipulating manner. So it only makes sense to us that most humans would spread false beliefs. Look at holidays, they have ZERO christian background. But people seem to get more amped for christmas than church. But hey, presents! So, this is almost a glib explanation but god or no god i Think JW's believe in more true things than most religions

---

Perhaps you're right. But I choose to not take Raymond Franzs words as absolute.

I take no issue with that stance, it's a rightly cautious one.  But the timeline I gave in my last post is mostly independent of Franz's view of what happened.  It gives a very strong impression that the organization made changes to rules and policies specifically to find cause to remove a person.  Combined with the policy regarding shunning those who are disfellowshipped it is a very effective way of keeping dissenting voices out of the group.  That is considered a positive outcome in the context of a godly people shielding itself from satanic influence.  But outside of a religious context, we tend to view such isolation as a dangerous thing.  And even within religions, the silencing of dissention is only a good thing when it benefits the individual's group, but seen as a dangerous thing in any other religious organization.  Which is to say, you are required to take the governing body's word as absolute, even though you know that at least one of its members turned out to be an apostate.

That alone should make one suspicious at the least.  The truth as given by the greatest intellect in existence should not be so easy to twist or corrupt that we must be shielded from it by... fellow human beings.  Especially when they show that they're just as fallible as anyone else, yet demand unquestioning obedience.

But your point was that the people had no issues and didn't want to speak out and they got shunned anyway. If they're dissenting voices then they can't try to play coy when confronted with their words and actions. Clearly this is a good policy for a cult. But I don't see why it can't be acknowledged as a good policy for an organization in general that teaches what the bibles says about a unity of spirit. The Governing Body has been wrong about many things, but in my opinion, they're minor. Thats why even if I leave JW's officially I made an oath that I'll never turn sour. Because I do believe that I have learned many good truths either way. I know what happened to my mom when she died. I don't tell people she is looking at me from heaven. Thats just one thing. But that one thing gives me peace of mind to one of the biggest mind effs religions do, and that is telling people that they're family is watching them from heaven

---

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

1. Can you read Greek nicanica123?


2. Jesus and God are not the same being. So explain this then, and just for you I'll quote from the NWT:

Genesis 1:17: When Abraham got to be ninety-nine years old, then Jehovah appeared to Abraham and said to him "I am God Almighty. Walk before me and prove yourself faultless.
Isaiah 13:6: "Howl, YOU people, for the day of Jehovah is near! As a despoiling from the Almighty it will come.
Revelation 1:8: "I am Alpha and Omega," says Jehovah God, "the One who is and who was and who is coming, the Almighty."
Revelation 4:8b:  "Holy, holy, holy is Jehovah God, the Almighty, who was and who is and who is coming."
Revelation 11:17: "We thank you, Jehovah God, the Almighty, the One who is and who was, because you have taken your great power and begun ruling as king.
Revelation 22:12-13: "Look! I am coming quickly, and the reward I give is with me, to render to each one as his work is. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end.
Isaiah 44:6: "This is what Jehovah has said, the King of Israel and the Repurchaser of him, Jehovah of armies, 'I am the first and the last, and besides me there is no God.'

According to those verses, Jehovah is the "first and the last", the "the Almighty", "who was and who is and who is to be", "the alpha and the omega", and "the beginning and the end".

But according to these passages Jesus is the First and the Last:

Revelation 1:17b-18: And he laid his right hand upon me and said: "Do not be fearful.. I am the First and the Last, and the living one; and I became dead, but, looik! I am living forever and ever, and I have the keys of death and Hades.
Revelation 2:8: "And to the angel of the congregation in Smyrna write: These are the things that he says, 'the First and the Last,' who became dead and came to life [again].

So then who is the First and the Last? Is it Jesus (as in Revelation 1:17 and 2:8) or is it Jehovah (as in Isaiah 41:4, 44:6, 48:12, and Revelation 22:12-13)?

No, I don't speak greek but I can read the Kingdom Interlinear and compare the greek words in those scriptures. As far as those scriptures, I do believe that you can find scriptures to make an argument for the trinity. But, when I read scriptures like when Jesus was called good teacher and he said, "no one is good but the father" or when God from heaven said, "this is my son, the approved..." I just can't but assume they're two separate beings. I can use a puzzle piece to try and figure out what the puzzle is going to look like and I could be right. But it would take all the pieces to truly know what the picture will be

---

1. Why would this almighty god be subjected to what a human demands as proof?

If he's undetectable and unobservable, then who cares if there's an "almighty" God or not?

2. Does gods creation not make him apparent?

Circular logic is illogical.  The existence of things only makes a creator apparent if you have evidence that creator caused the things to exist.  So provide some evidence.

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

Not while he allows people's loved ones, especially children, suffer needlessly.  If someone could save my son, and refused to because he was testing my free will, I'd have little use for him.  How much more so for an impotent or unwilling God?

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?

You ask too many random hypotheticals.  What if aliens made humans to farm the Earth, but then the aliens got wiped out by microbial lifeforms, leaving the Earthlings with vague ideas about "gods"?  And if so, what if one man found the body of an alien, unlocking the secret to eternal life, and deliberately arranged for his own crucifiction to prove he was "God"?  What if the universe is a magic space monkey's giant poop?

I'm sure you'll say all these are stupid ideas I pulled out of my ass, right?  Now consider this-- that's how the Bible looks to non Christians.

You missed understand my post. I haven't made a single statement. I expressed what goes through my head, thats all. 

[rexbeccarox]

Right well...

Your opinions seem to contradict the opinions of a huge number of other Christians. Although I do respect you a lot for owning your beliefs and opinions. I get tired of people being unable to distinguish between beliefs and facts.

It's up to you if you want to discuss it further. As someone who doesn't believe any of it from either your perspective or other Christians who are opposed to you, it's very baffling how you can't all agree. And since neither side has any evidence at all there's no way to know who is right, if anyone.

That's just my opinion Don't feel you have to respond if you don't want to.

Why do you believe these things, and how come they aren't just different but entirely opposite to millions of Christians who worship the same God?

Well, surprise surprise, but we believe that the other religions just have it wrong.

That's part of the point.

It is interesting to me that in my recent agnosticism, hearing a lot of criticism of religion that I feel JW's aren't worthy of.

Like what?

And even some of the ones that they are can be argued. Like blood transfusions. I have had a hard time with this but I find it interesting to read articles about the benefits of not accepting blood transfusions. Or the fact that there are hundreds of bloodless surgery wings at hospitals.

Please post those articles.  I'm letting you off the hook for the 30/30 rule; links are fine when adding to a discussion.

I don't think they developed those just for the few witnesses in America. Jw's simply believe that Satan is in control of the world and humankind in general. Not like they are his robots and minions but more in a manipulating manner. So it only makes sense to us that most humans would spread false beliefs.

Who's spreading false beliefs?  People don't tend to spread beliefs unless they actually hold them.  If a Baptist thinks his or her belief is real, that's what they spread.  There are exceptions of course- most megachurch preachers, for example, but your wording makes it sound like people actively lie to each other about their beliefs.  

Look at holidays, they have ZERO christian background. But people seem to get more amped for christmas than church. But hey, presents! So, this is almost a glib explanation but god or no god i Think JW's believe in more true things than most religions

You can't see the fallacies here?