"Dead conscious of nothing at all" .....

by anti-absolutism 34 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  A Paduan

  What's wrong with JWS ! even ex-JWS !

  Go outside and study animal behaviour, nature, they way things grow, are - write about it - 'from a purely human viewpoint' - then read it again and see what you see.
• 

  logansrun

  Archangel,

  I had a hard time trying to find out your main idea. Would you mind using a red font, or perhaps highlighting the main point in your future posts? Oh, and maybe you could use more than one exclamation point too (!!!!!!).

  Thanks,

  Bradley
• 

  peacefulpete

  "Who but Marduke restores his dead to life? Apart from Sarpanitum which goddess grants life? Marduke can restore to life from the grave, Sarpanitum knows how to save from destruction." ANET 437d The Poem of the Righteous Sufferer. The doctrine of sleeplike death with hope of ressurection was alluded to in other very ancient Mesopotamian cults. The teaching became explicit in the Persian Zoroastrianism. The author of Ecclesiastes was expressing a comon conception of death shared not only by Jews but many of their neighbors. Immortality of a soul was also current thought but typically among the primitive cults of mesopotamia reserved for the nobles to whom it was granted by the gods.
• 

  peacefulpete

  sargon..I liked your reference to the scene in the Life o Brian. (blessed are the cheesemakers) Remember how the Pharisee in the crowd followed up every statement made by Jesus with his own spin on it? He says something like "what he means is........." and we all laugh.
• 

  Utopian_Raindrops

  Even though I am no longer JW I do have a hope of living forever someday. It doesnt matter to me if it is right after death in heaven or if I wait asleep in Gods memory.

  As Neon said Ecclesiastes was written from a human standpoint not from Gods.

  We all know our Heavenly Father takes note even when a sparrow falls so of course we are not forgotten by Him. We are only forgotten by other humans.

  I think Ecclesiastes makes it clear that for those on earth being alive is better then being dead because once we die we have nothing to do with things here anymore. Not family or business or even earthly pleasures.

  For that scripture to be meaningful to anyone it would have to mean (to me that is) that living on earth is better then anyplace else.

  Sometimes now I think heaven would be ok but I have still not thought once I died I would be resurrected to Heavenly life.

  I remember what was said of these men

  *** Rbi8 2 Timothy 2:16-18 *** 17 and their word will spread like gangrene. Hymenae'us and Phile'tus are of that number. 18 These very [men] have deviated from the truth, saying that the resurrection has already occurred; and they are subverting the faith of some.

  If they were saying the resurrection already took place they must have meant the heavenly one or else everyone would have noticed an earthly one. All those formerly dead walking around you know.

  For me I just Trust in Our Heavenly Father and His Son Our Savior and Redeemer Christ Jesus to do what is best.

  What else can I do? Although many things are a curiosity and I do read the bible to see if I can find the answers. Most subjects are not pertinent to ones salvation.

  Besides I like surprises and I trust my Maker to give me the best gifts possible.

  He already gave me the best children so I know he wont fail me elsewhere.

  My 2 cents.

  Gotta Luv Yaz,

  Utopian_Raindrops
• 

  Inserter

  There you go again Neonmadman, making so much sense! Keep at er
• 

  Warrigal

  Ok, 'splain this one. If the dead are conscious of nothing at all, what is the current view of Rev. 6:9 & 10? If the souls are dead how are they able to cry out?

  Warrigal
• 

  peacefulpete

  It ought to strike everyone as distubing that this "inspired" book of Eccl requires superhuman judgement as to whether passages are expressions of divine truth or expressions of men speaking without divine assistance. Besides the context speaks of the "spirit" or force of life as leaving the body of men and beast only to go to an unknown place and there for it is difficult to see how the author was not contemplating spiritual matters but mearly the physically visible as you have proposed. The fact that this verse and others contradict later concepts of an immortal soul allluded to in Rev should make us question the idea of inspiration.

  Edited by - peacefulpete on 13 February 2003 15:14:21
• 

  NeonMadman

  It ought to strike everyone as distubing that this "inspired" book of Eccl requires superhuman judgement as to whether passages are expressions of divine truth or expressions of men speaking without divine assistance.

  Why do you think that it requires superhuman judgment to make such a distinction? I was able to do it without much difficulty at all. I just read the passage in context, and applied a bit of reason to what I was reading. The entire book of Ecclesiastes is written from the viewpoint of a human on earth, without taking spirituality into account. That's why the writer uses expressions such as "Everything is vanity," because, from a human point of view, it is. No matter what you do in your life, how much you accomplish, you lose it all when you die. That's the frame of reference for the whole book, and it becomes apparent if you actually read the material, in context - rather than picking out proof texts as the JW's do.

  Besides the context speaks of the "spirit" or force of life as leaving the body of men and beast only to go to an unknown place and there for it is difficult to see how the author was not contemplating spiritual matters but mearly the physically visible as you have proposed.

  Read what the writer says in Ecclesiastes 3:18-22:

  I also thought, "As for men, God tests them so that they may see that they are like the animals. Man's fate is like that of the animals; the same fate awaits them both: As one dies, so dies the other. All have the same breath; man has no advantage over the animal. Everything is meaningless. All go to the same place; all come from dust, and to dust all return. Who knows if the spirit of man rises upward and if the spirit of the animal goes down into the earth?"
  So I saw that there is nothing better for a man than to enjoy his work, because that is his lot. For who can bring him to see what will happen after him?

  Again, it seems clear that the writer is writing from a purely human viewpoint, expressing doubt as to whether there really is any hope beyond this immediate life. He's not offering any information as to where the spirit goes after death; rather, he is questioning whether it goes anywhere at all.

  The fact that this verse and others contradict later concepts of an immortal soul allluded to in Rev should make us question the idea of inspiration.

  The "contradiction" is merely a matter of style. Different Bible writers expressed themselves in different ways. Recognizing the differences adds richness to our study of the Bible, and actually helps to reinforce our faith in its inspiration.

  .
• 

  peacefulpete

  Without your previous bias on the matter (bias formed through reading other Bible passages) There is no way you would arrive at the conclusions you have. Many say it like, "Bible interprets Bible", this is merely another way of saying superhuman judgement (Divine assistance) You feel there is a need to explain this verse the way you do to accomodate the teaching found in other verses. My conclusions when reading this passage in context leads me to an opposite conclusion, why do you say this is? You are driven by necessity to harmonize this text with your religious training. Your conclusions then seem quite obvious to you. To me they seem like a complication of a simple statement. A theological elaboration if you will.

  Am I wrong? Do you not feel that the "proper" understanding of this passage can only be had if you understand the rest of the Bible? Or said another way, Do you not feel that by reading this book without the rest of the Bible a person might draw a "wrong" conclusion? I'll say it again it should concern us that the Bible "requires" Divine assitance to understand it "properly".
  This opens the door to multiple meanings and the cult belief that only a chosen few have the "correct" interpretation.
  I read this book as the spiritual musings of a man/men confused by the bitter realities he sees yet he contritely expresses conviction that a Divine plan is at work. This is the work of of a spiritual man seeking to understand spiritual things. I think he would be insulted at your belittling of his attempts at answers.