Resurrection without a soul that survives death.

Pronger1

One thing (among many) that always bothered me about JW teachings is what happens to the soul when we die. Sure God could be capable of creating a body and implanting it with all of our life experiences an memories. But how would not be a just a clone instead of being actually us? The only way to get around that is some essence or soul that exists even beyond physical death that makes us who we are, not just a collection of facts about what we observed and thought in our life times.

If technology developed to the point that all of our memories could be copied into another body, that would just be a copy or a clone. It wouldn't be us. So logically it seems there is something more there, a soul. Otherwise, no one would ever truly be resurrected. God would be creating a copy of us.

NAVYTOWN

What part of 'dead' don't they understand??

alfredjones100

I realised it some time ago too. If your consciousness is not transfered in some way from one body to another, if only every detail and thought of your life is remembered, then you will be just a clone. Just like the main character in the Tom Cruise movie "Oblivion". You'll think that you are that person, you will really believe it; but in the end you'll be just a copy. Sad really when you think about it.

John_Mann

They don't admit but they believe in a inanimate soul after death. A kind of backup survives death and keep frozen like an embryo. They say this frozen backup are in Jehovah's memory.

The most bizarre thing it's not to realize you are a clone if you are ressurected. But in JW worldview it's allowed to Jehovah make a clone of yourself even when you're alive.

This doctrine is absolute nonsense if you want to be "bible based".

But in real life I think our minds (and everything else) can be in some way stored in the spacetime matrix. If we could use quantum entanglement to particles in the past that once formed the pattern of our brains I think we could copy any brain\mind ever existed.

gingerbread

The Bible Students (C.T. Russell) adopted the belief of 'soul sleep' from the Adventists.

During a funeral 'talk' for a Jehovah's Witness, the phrase 'fallen asleep in death' is used to discribe the state of the deceased.

This is another doctrine of JW's that isn't original with the religion ( along with the concept of an earthly paradise restored or hidden Biblical numerical keys to identify the year of the return of Jesus Christ as King ).

ginger

EndofMysteries

Like in the movie, The 6th Day.

EndofMysteries

The 6th day is about exactly what you described.

EndofMysteries

Here is another thought though about the copy thing......

What about a person who has actually died but then they get revived. Is the revival actually that person or just something else inside a body that already had memories and such?

In that sense the resurrection can make sense, if the body is reconstructed, memories, etc, then turned back on again. WHat is the difference if it happens minutes later or years later?

Then you wonder, what actually makes you? Are you a biological robot or something more?

Island Man

Personally, I don't see it as an issue. We are fully/purely physical beings. Our consciousness and self-awareness is a result of the work of the brain. Therefore, if a person dies and his brain fully decays and a new brain is created that is perfectly identical to the original brain just before death, then the exact same consciousness will be recreated and the person will, in actuality, be resurrected.

The copy will be different only in the sense that different atoms and different cells are being used. But the practical value of the atoms and cells are identical so there will be identical sentience. The copy will not feel like a copy; will not be able to separate or distinguish its present sentience from the sentience of the original.

It only seems wrong if you assume that there is some intangible, mysterious, ethereal aspect to our consciousness. As sentient beings we are the product of our brain. Reproduce the brain and you reproduce the person. Is it a clone? Yes. Does that invalidate it being a resurrection? No. Clone vs Resurrection is a false dichotomy. It is a clone AND a resurrection. (not that I believe the bible)

Let me illustrate it this way: If you lend me a 100 dollar bank note I owe you 100 dollars. Do I have to return to you the exact same hundred dollar bank note in order to repay you? If I give you a different bank note are you going to cry foul saying it's not a valid repayment but just a clone of the original note? No. Yes, technically I'm returning a "clone" but it has the exact same value indistinguishable from the value of the original. Similarly it's the value, the effect, of sentience - identical sentience - that counts and not the technicality of a spatially non-identical body. It is the identical construction of the brain - the mind - that counts.

Another illustration that is a bit closer: If your house got destroyed and you built another house with different materials on the exact same spot is it wrong to say you rebuilt your house? Re-built, Re-surrect.

Resurrect comes from a Greek word that means stand again. So once the same person - the same sentience, the same mind - is able to stand again, to live again - by whatever means - then the person has been resurrected. So perfectly cloning the brain can be viewed as a means of resurrecting rather than a disqualification or an invalidation of the resurrection.

clarity

When I first realized this "resurrection" business,

I was freaked! We would just be clones, how

the hell would we be not! Why did this never

occur to me before!!!! aaahhhgggggg!

*

Island Man it is not about "value", it is about

experience.

If we would be brought back without the experience

AND the effect that had on our psyche...we will not

be us!

Your $100 dollar bill is counterfit! lol

clarity

Resurrection without a soul that survives death.

Share this