Franz' statement is outrageously unreasonable!

by Schizm 137 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  AK - Jeff

  Franz's biggest mistake is that he dumps the Watchtower and continues to believe there is a God and that he inspired men to write the Bible. His books indicate he dabbled a little bit in logic and detecting falacies. He needs to do more of that.

  Franz is a turtle. He left the organization but keeps carrying the same dogmatic shell.

  I find this tiring and unfair - to criticize and assume the attitudes and thinking of a man not on the forum to defend himself.

  I will say this - without supposition as to what another man might be thinking - or attacking his beliefs in his absence; Raymond Franz probably did more to open the eyes and minds of Watchtower captives than any other single person has ever done. I feel a real sense of gratitude that he was willing to do that. I did not see you - Mr proplog2 - writing an expose on the Watchtower organization.

  If Franz has made a gigantic leap from Christian to athiest would this make him more believable? Nonsense! The point is he exposed the serious wrongs within the organization. I respect that he continued as a Christian after so doing. I doubt he would attack your character or motives in your absence.

  Jeff
• 

  outoftheorg

  My daddy told me once, do not ever continue to argue with a fool.

  If you do continue, it becomes difficult to determine who is and who is not, the fool.

  Outoftheorg
• 

  Rabbit

  Schizms,

  To me, the Bible is an interesting collection of literary works -- no more, no less. However, IF you use the Bible as the 'say all - end all' tool to describe the Creator and his history and plans for mankind ...you really must take the entire book as a whole.

  For me, IF the creation story was true and IF the story of the "Tree of Life" was true...I have a real problem with this god of "love." BTW, even tho' the Bible does NOT show that Adam & Eve knew anything about their future life, I agree with you that they probably thought life would be unending for them before the 'big, bad sin.'

  So what's the 'problem' I have with this 'god of love' ? That he would be so strict, anal & controlling that he would go into a killing mode over picking and eating a piece of damned fruit !!! But, that's not all folks...he then tells the Mom & Dad of the human race of his other plans -- now - now he tells them that all their children and their childrens children will be punished, too. For the 'sins of the parents' the children will pay, too.

  NOWHERE... does the Bible say Adam & Eve KNEW anything about the condemnation of humankind, because of their 'sin'...BEFORE it happened. NOWHERE...is any indication given that Adam & Eve knew about any supposed future 'ransom sacrifice' either.

  What a cruel, unfair, unloving god this is...to CAUSE imperfection, disease, war and death to visit every man, woman & child on earth since then -- all for the purpose of punishing 2 'guilty' people. He has punished BILLIONS.

  And what for ? Some stupid ass bet or wager between another of his creations (satan) and him ? All to show how people really do "Love" this "God of Love" and ...NOT for what he will give them or what bad things he might not spare them ? And BILLIONS of people have to die for that shit ???

  Sorry. This is no "God of Love." What if a court sentenced YOUR children and grandchildren to prison -- for something YOU did ???

  Your sense of fairplay and justice would be violently offended that innocent people would have to pay for your sins, wouldn't you ???

  Well, MY sense of fairplay and justice is violently offended by your gawd.

  And, geez...I'm only a meer imperfect human...what do I know, eh ?

  Rabbit
• 

  Tez

  Mmmmmm looks as though Schizm has backed out of this discussion!!!!
• 

  jeeprube

  Thus, it stands to reason that had Adam and Eve been obedient to God's command they would have never died.

  Ah, the outstanding logic of the WTS and her devotees. "It stands to reason".....usually preceeds some ridiculous statement thet we're all supposed to accept as the word of Jehovah.
• 

  Satanus

  Come on, brother schizzy, you can do better than that. Your not down for the count, yet. Get up and take a few more swings.

  Coach S
• 

  JosephMalik

  That God told Adam and Eve they would "positively die" upon eating the forbidden fruit does not conclusively prove that he intended they live forever. Confession, Perhaps this is because you are not looking at the entire picture. Such proof if that is we choose to call it should include the tree of life, a reality visible and readily available to Adam and Eve at this same time. What would such a tree do for them? 22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever: 23 Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken. 24 So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life. Not just Adam and Eve but anyone else, their children for example could eat from this tree and live forever. This is given as the reason why the Cherubims prevented them access to this tree of life at least for the length of time it existed on this earth. Now regarding what I assume is Franz’s statement: He did not discuss their eternal future if they obeyed. I wonder how he knows this? Did the scriptures record every instruction given to Adam? What it did record was the only restriction given to Adam regarding the forbidden tree in the center of the Garden. The tree of life was also in this Garden as part of God’s plan for them. Therefore even if they did not realize how important this tree of life was they soon learned about it since they had permission to eat from it and thus fulfill God’s plan for them to live forever. This plan is scripturally established in such texts and we can only guess that Adam did not know about it or was depending on it to protect him when he ate? Now I understand that Franz does reject this and believes in going to heaven as so many do today. But he is free to discuss his views of such immortal life here on earth or elsewhere if he so chooses. Joseph
• 

  Cygnus

  eb'dee eb'dee eb'dee thats all folks
• 

  Terry

  I seemed to have missed the discussion about the two differences.

  1.Don't do this_____ . If you do, this______ will occur.

  2.If you do this______, then, this________ will occur.

  Number 1 is negative. Number 2 is positive.

  Example:

  1.Don't shoot yourself in the head with a .357 Magnum. If you do, you will surely die.

  2.If you refrain from shooting yourself in the head with a .357 Magnum there will be no immediate self-inflicted cause of death.

  The above two statements contain similarities but, they are not identical.

  Can we construe everlasting life from either? No. Further, the only CERTAIN thing that can be construed is death from self-inflicted head wounds.

  Now, can we not say this is the distinction intended by Franz in the sentence quoted in the first post?

  Simply this: Eating the fruit leads to death, whereas, NOT eating the fruit does not guarantee everlasting life without some FURTHER action or actions.

  What's the big deal here?

  T.
• 

  Confession

  That God told Adam and Eve they would "positively die" upon eating the forbidden fruit does not conclusively prove that he intended they live forever.

  Confession, Perhaps this is because you are not looking at the entire picture. Such proof if that is we choose to call it should include the tree of life...

  Joseph Malick, I'm happy to look at the entire picture with you or with Schizm. If you read my post, you'll find my point was that the reasoning presented by Schizm was insufficient--and that his rich sarcasm and potshots did nothing to advance his position. You'll also notice that I myself supplied a scripture from Paul that suggested he thought humans were originally designed to live forever. I also agree with Rabbit's premise. To discuss this subject does not require that a person presently believes in the Bible or in God. We are here presenting thoughts on Biblical teaching. Everything should be preceded with, "Let's, for the sake of discussion, assume the Bible is the inspired Word of God and contains the best information as to what is true."