Posts by moggy lover

165

Do Animals Have Souls?

by Cold Steel in

i know most jehovah's witnesses believe in the soul sleeping doctrine.

by this, given that neither man nor beast has a spirit, but that they do possess souls (or "intelligences" unique to themselves).

where this intelligence resides between death and resurrection is more than a passing interest, but again, assuming that yehweh can recreate one's distict soul, does the society believe that animals have souls?

moggy lover

You're right. Your question cannot be answered definitively, at least not at this time and in our current state of understanding. The limits of human wisdom preclude the making of any categorical statement one way or other. We are left but to speculate, wonder, and believe. But belief itself is a product of having faith, which itself is defined as "being certain of that which we cannot see". [Heb 11:1 NIV]

We must therefore depend, if we want to have faith, on revelation. If you are oriented to Christianity, the source of that revelation is the Bible. Evidently however the Bible does not want us to know things which we cannot see, because if we knew for certain it would by logic cancel out the need for faith.

The Bible , is either deliberately or otherwise, too vague, or ambiguous, or even subject to a myriad different interpretive conclusions, that one will find onself miserably locked into a maze of conflicting values if one ponders a question such as this. The two parts of the Bible are already locked into their own separate theolgcal matrix and the condition of animal life is left unstated. The OT is concerned about the relationship of the nation of Israel and its descendants to their God Yahweh, while the NT deals with the issue of sin and reconcilliation back to God through the blood of Christ. No mention of Tabby or Trigger anywhere in either hemisphere of the Bible.

But there are tantalizing clues. For instance we know that animals are CALLED souls, but do they also HAVE souls? Dunno. However there is a text at Prov 12:10, where Freddy Franz translated the NWT to read:

"The righteous man is caring for the soul OF his domestic animal"

The genetive here evidently indicates possession, so that the "of" implies that domestic beasts, at least, appear to HAVE a soul. However, as I said, this is a minefield of interpretive impulses and is subject to endless debate.

Does "soul" here mean "life" only? According to the NASV Bible the answer is Yes. Can the word "soul" here [Hebrew "Nephesh"] simply mean the physical needs of the animal? According to the NIV, the answer is Yes. [The righteous man tends to the NEEDS of his animal - NIV]

And so on.

What then do we believe? That is what the root of our humanity is, and not what we know or want to know. Personally, as a dyed-in-the-wool Baptist, I believe that only domestic pets who are smarter than their owners will live with them forever in the eventual heavenly Paradise.

Which means that Moogy my cat is a shoo in. She's so smart that she has mastered the "fetch" command. When she wants something she gets me to fetch it.

24

Have the leaders of JWs ever said 'sorry'?

by JWB in

well have they?

given that 'we are all imperfect and fall down many times' one would expect them to have made at least some mistakes since rutherford founded the jw religion.

as christians are supposed to be humble, including those who 'would be great among you', should we not have seen evidence of this over such a long time period?.

moggy lover

No.

18

What if the male became pregnant and not the woman.

by jam in

jw
friends

how would our world today be different if the males.

became pregnant.

let's suppose the creator (who ever.

moggy lover

Well for a start, if males were the ones to fall pregnant, the condom would have been invented before the wheel.

Cheers.

8

Reasoning Book PDF

by konceptual99 in

can anyone supply a link please?.

.

ta.

moggy lover

Ta, mate

20

Outsourcing of printing?

by Lynnie in

i heard through the grapevine this weekend that my second cousin and her husband made a trip to india to investigate possible outsourcing of printed docs for the wtbts.

he is a uber bethelite in the purchasing dept and my cousin is a good bethelite wife.

they were living in brooklyn but have been moved up to wallkill in the last few months.

moggy lover

Oddly enough, some years ago, I heard something along the same lines. The Watchtower used to be located in a beautiful hill station called Lonavla where they maintained a large missionary home, office, and printery. Also located here were several translators who spent their days translating the English Watchtower literature into various local languages. And there were the printers.

But sometime around 2005, I believe, the Watchtower sold these pemises, and moved to a smaller office in Bangalore, where they no longer maintain a printery. The various language congregations were advised to contact commercial printers if they had literature requirements, while special pioneers would still be involved in the translatiing, albeit no longer at the Indian Bethel HQ. The cost for this printing was to be borne by the local congregations.

My understanding is that, much to the embarrassment of the Watchtower, the commercial printers were more efficient, and hence more competitive in price, than themselves!

8

Wack ass J-dub apologist channel on YouTube.

by Joliette in

jw
friends

i'm trying to post the video, but the name of the youtube channel is named micheal rankin.

he suddenly stopped making youtube videos.. can't post in google chrome.. .

okay, never mind here it goes:.

moggy lover

It is debateable whether "epignosis" means "accurate" knowledge. We know for sure that it is an intensive form of "gnosis" - knowledge - because of the "epi" prefix. But what does this prefix indicate?

Most lexigographers believe that whereas "gnosis" simply means "knowledge" in the intellectual grasp of factual information, "epi-gnosis" would indicate a fuller understanding of its moral or ethical demands. Indeed, the word is used, in its twenty occurrences in the NT, only to the relationship that "epi-gnosis" has of spiritual matters.

For instance, believers need the "epi-gnosis" of the Son [Eph 4:13], the "epignosis" of the Will of God [Phil 1:9, Col 1:19, etc] and the "epi-gnosis" of the mystery that is Christ Himself [Col 2:2, 2Pet 1:8, 2:20]. There is also the possibility of being an absence of "epi-gnosis" when it comes to God [Ro 1:28]. The Israelites had, according to Paul, a zeal for God, but this was not based on "epi-gnosis".

There is also the possibility of having an "epi-gnosis" of sin [Ro 3:20] and of The Truth [1 Tim 2:4 etc]

Just as Mum [you from Aussie?] is aware of the tautology of saying "accurate knowledge", most lexicons will define "epi-gnosis" as "full" knowledge, or "complete" knowledge. The emphasis then, is on its totality rather than its accuracy.

One can have less than complete knowledge of God, which could lead to a missapplied zeal for God as in the case of the first century Jews.

Oddly enough, the NW"T" translators admit this in the use of the verb form of this verb, "epiginosko". Twice they translate this verb as "fully know" [Matt 11:27] and twice as "know fully" [Lu 1:4, Ac 22:24]

63

2013 DC new releases - rumors ???

by obarac in

there is rumors that in this years dc nwt will be released and also new tracts.

any other rumors about new releases?.

moggy lover

What about the "Reasoning from the Scriptures", or more correctly, "[Human] Reasoning from the Scriptures" book?

That has needed revising for some time.

I heard that the Watchtower leadership sold off their state-of-the-art MAN stich binding presses which they imported from Germany. For several years now they have been using smaller staple binding presses.

Then again, I also heard that they did purchase smaller stich binding presses from Japan last year and have only recently installed them in Patterson. So expect an improvement in the current crop of cheap publications. The prime example of this is the "What Does The Bible Really teach" book.

My The "Truth that leads to Everlasting life" is still well preserved since I got it in about 1968, but my "Bible Teach" book fell apart after just a few weeks.

25

"Jerusalem from above": Mother of Jesus Christ

by pixel in

i've never seen this before, from this week school review, question 8:.

why did jesus respond as he did regarding his mother and his brothers, and what does this teach us?

(mark 3:31-35) [feb. 18, w08 2/15 p. 29 par.

moggy lover

Actually, Badfish has a point that answers your question. Let's just elaborate on what he mentions. From around the mid-second century, a theological viewpoint was emerging that attempted to struggle with the obvious implications of Christ's human as well as divine status. This viepoint suggested that, despite being born human, Jesus Christ somehow was elevated to some sort of divine or semi-divine status at His baptism. Something happened when the Holy Spirit invaded His Person which transformed Him into a bonafide Son of God. He was not born the Christ or Son of God [despite what Lu 2:11 said], but became such at that time.

This viewpoint came to be called Adoptionism, and over the next two centuries would evolve into several sub categories. One category, for instance insisted that the "Christ" was a divine creation of God, the "first of God's creations" who came into the human Christ at the baptism, and who left Him and went back to heaven at the crucifixtion, leaving the human Jesus to die physically.

The main difference between this viewpoint and Orthodoxy, was that whereas the Adoptionists saw Jesus Christ as an elevated human being who became the Son of God, the Orthodox position was that Jesus Christ, who always was the Son, was actually demoted, or devalued as a Person when He emptied Himself and and became human.

One such adoptionist, who created much controversy in the Church by the fourth century, was Arius. His viewpoint approximates the current Watchtower theological structure, which sees the human born Jesus changed in status from mere human to Son of God at the baptism. I am not sure what scripture Arius used to sustain his own theology, since much of his own writings have perished, but the one made by the Watchtower, Gal 4:26, is hardly contextual with the Person of Christ.

Naturally, being hide bound "organizationalists" the Watchtower sees the NT only through its own constructed "organizational" lenses. The "Jerusalem above"is precisely defined as "OUR mother"and not that of Jesus. [Know anyone who created his owm mum??] What then is this "Jerusalem above?

Dunno.

Paul himself does not explain at length what it is, thus there are several evangelical explanations. One, I believe, is that it is the Christian Hope. Paul tells us that whatever it is, it is an allegory [Greek "allegoria"]. He tells us of two women who represent two mountains. Hagar represents Mount Sinai from whence came the Mosaic Law which burdened the physical Jews with the hope of salvation through endless OBEDIENCE to its edicts.

But, Sarah we are told, represents the Jerusalem above, from whence comes the Christian hope of salvation through FAITH in Christ as a Person, in both His human and Divine status.

16

Governing Body's Doctrinal Errors Vs. Jesus Apostles' so called errors under the guidance of the Holy Spirit?

by I_love_Jeff in

if the apostles were guided by the holy spirit, how could they have made any doctrinal errors as mentioned by many jehovah's witnesses?

the governing body has admitted to making doctrinal errors and state that " you might as well condem jesus' apostles as well since they too had made errors.

i have read that the apostles had only made behavior mistakes not errors in doctrinal writings.. "the new testament makes it abundantly clear that doctrinal error can lead to eternal damnation.. didache is a noun found thirty times in the new testament to mean doctrine, teaching.

moggy lover

Further to the above posts, the relationship of the apostles to Christ must also be kept in mind. They were still disciples, a word which means "learners, or students". Like all good students they were always learning while in the presence of the Master, and what better way to learn than to ask questions. Thus, there is no evidence here that they themselves were expressing a doctrinal maxim, to be classed under "false expectations".

In fact quite the contrary. The only source of doctrinal imperatives is, now, as it was back then, Jesus Himself, and He made no statement one way or the other on this subject. Going insofar as to imply that this was none of their business. This should alert all potential disciples [or learners] that no definitive statement will ever be forthcomimg so the best methodology is: Keep your trap shut. This subject then becomes closed till He Comes again.

Those first century followers learned their lesson well never having made any statements regarding the exact time for the fulfillment of prophecy. Their role was to believe that they were, as we all should believe, living in the Last Days. Live as if this is the Last Days, but evangelize for tomorrow.

The GB on the other hand are not learning as disciples, but TEACHING. Just as Jesus taught the disciples, they have usurped this role for themselves and presume to TEACH the rank and file. So the comparisons are artificially created to excuse a massive fraud perpertrated on the the rest of the Watchtower followers.

A. Jesus taught the disciples. B. They learned by asking questions.

A The GB teach the rank and file. B. No questioning or debate is tolerated, even in the face of false teaching.

14

NWT Matt 18:2 Child referred to as "it"

by Red Piller in

the nwt translation renders matt 18:2 this way,.

"so, calling a young child to him, he set it in their midst ".

calling a child "it" made me curious.

moggy lover

Hi. Bobcat:

I'm sorry, but I can't answer your question definitively. I see two problems here. First, there are two parables under consideration. The one about keeping watch which is what Peter is concerned about, and second, the identity of the FDS as mentioned in vs 42. Does everyone, including unbelievers, have the responsibility to keep on the watch or is that exclusive to believers? That is what Peter wants to know.

To complicate matters, Jesus does not answer Peter directly but adds another parable, that of the FDS, asking, "Who then is the FDS...."

The second problem is determining the appropriate antecedent to verse 48. Is the part about "much is given" refer to all those willing to be on the watch, or to the FDS"? I don't know. I can only quote from a commentary I used back in the 50s when I was in school. Published in 1920 and written by W. Walsham How, it says:

"Our Lord does not answer this inquiry one way or other , but continues his discourse, leaving the Apostle to draw his own conclusion. That conclusion would be, that the lesson is for all, but for each according to the work entrusted to him by the great Master"