by nicolaou 26 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
t is clear they are saying there is no difference between those alive at Armageddon to everyone who has died throughout all of history.
You keep missing the fundamental difference. Those who die before Armageddon get a second chance, those executed at Armageddon by Jehovah do not. The new light does not alter Jehovah's execution of people at Armageddon...all it does is allow some to change their mind at the very last minute and possibly be saved.
I remember this being discussed in the late 1990s. They pointed out (I think at a convention) that the difference between dying in the flood and dying at Armageddon is you may get a resurrection if you died in the flood but not if you died at Armageddon. Therefore the fact children of unbelievers died in the flood (so the reasoning went) does not tell us whether or not children of unbelievers may survive Armageddon.
Nope...died in the flood meant you were dead forever as you were executed by Jehovah directly as a judgement. Anyone executed by Jehovah never gets a second chance.
Sea Breeze, like most theists, can't handle the truth that human morality is inevitably better and higher than anything a "god" created.
They haven't figured out that it's because god are created by immoral people to control the foolish.
Simon,
Why should chemicals care what reaction they have? In the atheist paradigm that’s pretty much all we are right?
One chemical reaction goes fizz, another one goes bang. Who cares? That’s how atheists describe their formation right? It’s all just chemicals and chance.
Im not saying that serial killing is not inherently evil, nor am I saying ateists don’t have a God-given conscience that tells them so.
What I am wondering is how happenstance could possibly provide atheists with ANY notion of universal evil?
What say you?
6 Consider a number of related questions. Several Bible accounts describe Jehovah’s judgments against unrighteous people, such as the unknown numbers who died in the Flood or the seven nations in the Promised Land that Jehovah ordered his people to devote to destruction or the 185,000 Assyrian soldiers slain by an angel of Jehovah in a single night. (Gen. 7:23; Isa. 37:36, 37) In these cases, does the Bible give us enough information to determine that Jehovah sentenced all those individuals to eternal destruction, with no hope of a resurrection? No, it does not. Why can we say that?
7 We do not know how Jehovah judged each individual; nor do we know whether those who were killed had an opportunity to learn about Jehovah and to repent. In regard to the time of the Flood, the Bible does say that Noah was “a preacher of righteousness.” (2 Pet 2:5) But it does not say that while he was building a colossal ark, he was also attempting to reach every individual on earth who would face destruction in the Deluge. Similarly, in the case of the nations of Canaan, we do not know if all those wicked people had an opportunity to learn about Jehovah and change their ways.
What I am wondering is how happenstance could possibly provide atheists with ANY notion of universal evil?
Well, we certainly didn't get our notion of good and evil from the Bible God considering his notion is contradictory and hypocritical. So, we can scratch that explanation off the list.
Slim, that just says they don't know much like the new light. The principle has always been "be killed by an event caused directly by Jehovah then you have been judged".
But sure they leave it open to the bloke living on a small island during the flood gets wiped out because of it and he never heard Noah may he get a second chance? They say maybe.
But still doesn't change anything at Armageddon where ALL who do die at the hands of Jehovah are dead forever...the new light suggests the same bloke on an island may simply survive Armageddon because he would react favorably if he heard.
This does not equate to the nonsense that billions survive Armageddon...well its all nonsense really but the GB just make it worse.
Sea Breeze: What I am wondering is how happenstance could possibly provide atheists with ANY notion of universal evil?
What is "universal evil" and where does it fit into the discussion of determining moral values?
Well, we certainly didn't get our notion of good and evil from the Bible
Sanchy,
If you were not a product of the God of the bible, you would not even be able to admit that you have notions of good and evil as you have done above. Why don't you get upset at rocks, liquids, chemicals, gravity, electricty, molecules etc. when they don't act "right"? Why don't we put animals on trial for murder?
The atheist certitude of their own morality, gives them away that they really do believe in the God of the bible and that they do not really believe in blind chance mixed with chemical reactions and explosions, and other unguided imaginations etc; as the source of their existence.
So, atheists need look no farther than their own morality for proof of God. Out of all the places to hide from God, atheism makes the least sense and is by far the most improbable.
One should consider that the reference material (i.e., bible) that is being sited may not be an accurate or full account. Therefore, the possibility exists for another outcome. If we argue that we are created by an intelligent designer, and we are a subset of the creator or created in the image of the gods, then our patterns of logic should be congruent with our creator. As Hermes stated,” as above so below” or the apple does not fall far from the tree then we would not be so different from our creator as our children are to us.
My point is, we are struggling to twist out a logical outcome that does fit well into the Old Testament portrayal of the Hebrew god Yahweh. Perhaps the data we are consuming is not accurate?
What if there is another story, what if we do not know everything?
