Posts by Cold Steel

5

Lifeforce v. Spirit and Star Trek and Stargate SG1?

by Cold Steel in

i was just wondering about the jw concept of lifeforce v. spirit.. now i'm a big fan of stargate sg-1/atlantis and, to a lesser degree, star trek.

and the question i always had about the whole dematerialization and rematerialization process used in wormhole travel and beaming and such is this: if i understand it correctly, ever time you dematerialize, you're effectively killed, or cease to exist.

the version of "you" that steps onto the transporter or jumps into the wormhole gets completely zapped and the one that reappears on the other side is simply a perfect copy, with all the memories, feelings and so forth.

Cold Steel

I didn't know that the JWs discourage sci-fi. I've always found it a way of expanding the mind. Look at the "universes" that have been created by Star Trek and Stargate. Even down to entire books being written on the Klingon "language" and so forth. Talk about someone needing to get a life! I love the Stargate series (except the last "Universe" iteration), and you see all these very hip people doing all these courageous things. Then you see the people who write the episodes, and they're all geeks who live in their mothers' basements and wear plaid shirts and black plastic glasses!

Another fascinating aspect of science fiction is the quantum physics view that there are multiple parallel universes in which people can delve into any one of a variety of differing options that occur in an almost limitless "crossroads" situations. For example, today you decided to stop by a 7-11 for coffee on the way back from work -- but what if you had in one dimension, but hadn't in another. In each split-second opportunity, what if you had chosen the other option? In another universe you might have stopped, only to die in a car accident when the coffee spills on you? Thus, many millions, or billions, of situations, you may have taken an alternate path and created multiple variations in vast numbers of alternatives that affect the timeline. (In my view, random decisions aren't as random as they appear and are the result of many variables that are far more complex than they appear, in which case all variables being equal, the same result will occur in all cases.) But it's fascinating to think about and write about. Why would a church find it the least bit threatening? In short, how is standard fiction any different than science fiction?

From a theological standpoint, if other Christian sectarians are correct, then the JWs will know it instantly after they die. They'll look down and see their bodies on the hospital bed, or what have you, and they'll instantly know that a system reset has just occurred.

Ah, but what if they're right? Does it make a whole lot of sense to "resurrect" people just to throw them (or their copies) back into a pit of destruction? And do I understand it correctly that we'll all be given one last chance to side with Jehovah?

5

Lifeforce v. Spirit and Star Trek and Stargate SG1?

by Cold Steel in

i was just wondering about the jw concept of lifeforce v. spirit.. now i'm a big fan of stargate sg-1/atlantis and, to a lesser degree, star trek.

and the question i always had about the whole dematerialization and rematerialization process used in wormhole travel and beaming and such is this: if i understand it correctly, ever time you dematerialize, you're effectively killed, or cease to exist.

the version of "you" that steps onto the transporter or jumps into the wormhole gets completely zapped and the one that reappears on the other side is simply a perfect copy, with all the memories, feelings and so forth.

Cold Steel

I was just wondering about the JW concept of lifeforce v. spirit.

Now I'm a big fan of Stargate SG-1/Atlantis and, to a lesser degree, Star Trek. And the question I always had about the whole dematerialization and rematerialization process used in wormhole travel and beaming and such is this: If I understand it correctly, ever time you dematerialize, you're effectively killed, or cease to exist. The version of "you" that steps onto the transporter or jumps into the wormhole gets completely zapped and the one that reappears on the other side is simply a perfect copy, with all the memories, feelings and so forth. And that version would be completely unaware that he or she (in the case of the very attractive Amanda Tapping) is not the original, but, as I said, a perfect copy.

If I were a JW, I'd be concerned that the version of me that was dying might be the "original" and that the one resurrected would be just a lifeforce "copy." It would look, think, act and recall just like me, but would it actually be me? In other words, I can copy a Word file on my computer to a key disk, and it would open and act just like the original (the one that was erased). All the fonts, colors and sizes would be right, right down to the slightest detail, but the original would be on my hard disk and, most likely, overwritten. All the 00s and 01s would be identical down to the last detail, but it wouldn't be the same.

Dr. McCoy may have been right. If he stepped up onto the transporter, he would be completely dematerialized, beamed a considerable distance, and then the computer (hopefully) would put all the parts back together again. I thought of this again when I watched a Stargate episode where SG1 was knocked unconscious on a strange planet (they're always strange, right?) When they came to, they were dressed differently, managed to find their weapons and gear and escape. But back at Stargate Command, they soon began to weaken and pass out. It was soon discovered that they were not, in fact, SG1 at all, but replicas in robotic bodies. At first they wondered how their consciouses had been transferred, but they later learned that their minds had not been transferred at all, but that they had been replicated. Moreover, the original team members had revived and they wanted their lives back! Each had identical memories, feelings -- everything -- but despite the fact that they were self aware, they were merely copies.

The show raised some fascinating ethical points, and now some theological ones as well.

What do you think?

159

Getting into Arguments with JW's...

by ForbiddenFruit in

i'm trying to fade away, but i sometimes find myself in discussions or arguments with jw family/friends/white haired virgin elders.

now, i usually have them beat on things but i'm not very experienced, so i was thinking if you guys could help me put together a list of completely unanswerable questions to pose to my jw friends/family/elders so they can stop bugging me.

if i keep asking them questions they simply cannot answer, then they might leave them alone.

Cold Steel

MadJW says: "Several different questions here."

1. Angels are sometimes termed spirits; that which is spirit is invisible and powerful. …

True, but John says: “ Beloved, now are we the sons of God….” (1 Jhn 3:2), so humans also are equated as the offspring of God.

2. The demons as such were not created by God. The first to make himself one was Satan the Devil, who became the ruler of other angelic sons of God who also made themselves demons. (Mt 12:24, 26) In Noah’s day disobedient angels materialized, married women, fathered a hybrid generation known as Nephilim….

If God created all things, logic dictates that He would also be the One who created the spirits who were evil, including Satan. The story you relate is almost certainly a legend, or myth. Certainly, the scriptures nowhere teach that spirits can materialize bodies. In fact, Jesus asked his disciples to “handle me and see,” for “a spirit hath not flesh and bones as ye see me have.” That wouldn’t make sense if spirits could manufacture a body at will, because what would it be proving? And why would God have placed the instinct of procreation within such spirits? If you’re saying you believe that angelic spirits can turn themselves into humans, I see nothing in the scriptures to back that up. In fact, if they had that power, why wouldn’t they create bodies and have sex with themselves? (Certainly they could have materialized bodies superior to those of women living in that day and age!)

3. (2 Peter 2:4) Certainly if God did not hold back from punishing the angels that sinned, but, by throwing them into Tartarus, delivered them to pits of dense darkness to be reserved for judgment.

The only “angels that sinned” we have a record of is when Satan and his angels rebelled against God. There is no other account. But there were many people living in the days of Noah who most likely had never had God’s word preached to them. Peter says that Jesus was preaching to the spirits of those who were “dead” — thus they were spirits of humans who had sinned during those days and had been killed in the flood. Jesus told the thief on the cross, “…this day shalt thou be with me in Paradise” (literally, the “king’s park”). This was not heaven, but a realm of spirits that included those who had perished in the flood. If this is not true, why would Jesus spend three days preaching to angels he was just going to throw “into Tartarus”?

4. Jesus’ spirit [was] entrusted into his father’s hand was thus…God was being called upon to guard, or care for, that one’s life-force.

That’s a pretty far stretch, in my opinion. You’re using the word “entrust” which infers a commitment. But “commend” or “commit” also means, “To represent as worthy, qualified, or desirable; recommend, or to express approval of; praise.” In other words, Jesus was committing his spirit into the hands of his Father, as we all must do ultimately. It’s not so much as “guarding” one’s life force, but in freely giving of it.

12

Mormon Version of Hell

by cameo-d in

.....teaches that upon death, righteous souls go to paradise, while the souls of the unrepentant go to a spirit prison, where the former are sent from paradise to preach the gospel to the latter, and the living perform work in lds temples providing ordinances that can only be received in the flesh, which the repentant imprisoned ones can accept.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/resurrection.

imagine that you were an apostate and you end up in the spirit prison.

would you rather have to listen to the righteous mormons or the righteous jws (providing you were given a preference)?.

Cold Steel

Of the two, I'd prefer the Mormon version. Easy.

I don't want my spirit to sleep. I'd just as soon stay awake, thank you.

The JWs scared the daylights out of my grandmother (a Methodist) with their talk of soul sleeping. I don't blame her. There's something about being bug food that just turns me off.

The Mormons also believe in premortality as well, which I like. I think God would be arbitrary and capricious to just create people and send them to this stinking hell hole of existence without their consent. Adam and Eve may have sinned, but what did we do to deserve this?

159

Getting into Arguments with JW's...

by ForbiddenFruit in

i'm trying to fade away, but i sometimes find myself in discussions or arguments with jw family/friends/white haired virgin elders.

now, i usually have them beat on things but i'm not very experienced, so i was thinking if you guys could help me put together a list of completely unanswerable questions to pose to my jw friends/family/elders so they can stop bugging me.

if i keep asking them questions they simply cannot answer, then they might leave them alone.

Cold Steel

The weak link of the JW is its legitimacy as the one true church.

No one in the church has ever had any indication from God that it is HIS church. Has anyone from Charles T. Russle on down ever had a revelation? Did they see God, or an angel? Where did they receive their ordinations from? Who ordained any overseer, and who ordained them, and who ordained the one before and so forth? At some point the ordinations stop and people began appointing themselves.

"Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen YOU and ordained YOU," the Lord said to his apostles.

The JW is a manmade church, just like the others they rail against. Its leaders are self-appointed, or how did God come to proclaim himself through a publishing company?

Most Christians believe that man has a spirit, and while it's true that the word "spirit" can be translated "breath," guess what? It also can be translated "spirit"! The Witnesses and the SDA both rely on ONE VERSE in Ecclesiastes, a book that was not even written by a prophet, for their belief that the soul "sleeps" at death. Ecclesiastes was not an eschatological book, but a philosophical book. Peter says that while Jesus was put to death in the flesh, that he was made alive in the spirit, by which he preached to the spirits in prison, which were disobedient in the days of Noah. If Jesus has a spirit, shouldn't we? And who were the spirits to whom he preached?

The Witnesses say they were the fallen angels, but even if their interpretation is correct that angels became flesh and had sexual intercourse with humans (a bizarre and apostate view), why would he preach to them? "I'm here to tell you guys you shouldn't have done that!"

He did this for three days???

That must have been some preaching!

Actually, the "sons of God" were God's people. And the "daughters of men" were those who worshipped idols. There were no angels. It's an old Hebrew myth like Adam's first wife. Pure fiction. Spirits don't have the power to assume flesh. If so, why did Jesus ask his disciples to feel his wounds and examine him? "For a spirit hath not flesh and bone as ye see me have," he said. If spirits could manufacture flesh and bone bodies, what would have been the logic in Jesus' statement?

Look, I'm not in the business of ripping people from their faith, but people need to be a little more discerning. Christianity can be perfectly true and the JW church false. I personally believe that the church of Jesus Christ should be established by God and that it should be just like his church was anciently. I would never seek to destroy someone's faith, but if they asked why I couldn't buy into it, I'd tell them and ask them to respect my view unless they could tell me how God established a church without telling anyone.

That's what really gets me.

10

Gambling on Armageddon?

by Cold Steel in

ever since the millerites, many people have been gambling on armageddon and the return of christ.. the conventional view is that god will once again gather his people into the lands of their inheritance from the four corners of the earth, and that once established, the jewish state will build a temple.

a great gentile leader (called "gog" by ezekiel) will then bring a vast army down upon jerusalem and will eventually be destroyed by the returning christ.

according to zachariah, the lord will cause a great earthquake to split the mount of olives, and when the jews first behold their lord, they will ask about the wounds in his hands.

Cold Steel

Those who save do it quietly because it would be frowned on as showing weak faith in both the imminent end and in Jehovah's personal protection.

Is this true...really? Don't they just tithe, like many religions?

The imminent end thing is pretty ridiculous. I'd think as most JWs get old, that they'd get tired of waiting. There's just so long that you can pull the same routine.

10

Gambling on Armageddon?

by Cold Steel in

ever since the millerites, many people have been gambling on armageddon and the return of christ.. the conventional view is that god will once again gather his people into the lands of their inheritance from the four corners of the earth, and that once established, the jewish state will build a temple.

a great gentile leader (called "gog" by ezekiel) will then bring a vast army down upon jerusalem and will eventually be destroyed by the returning christ.

according to zachariah, the lord will cause a great earthquake to split the mount of olives, and when the jews first behold their lord, they will ask about the wounds in his hands.

Cold Steel

Even the John who wrote the book of Revelation thought the end was imminent ("I am coming soon"). Jesus though it would happen within the time of his own generation, as did Paul (he did not write 2 Thessalonians). The list goes on and stretching down time to our own. Before Miller, there was Isaac Newton, Charles Wesley, Whiston, Brown, etc., etc.

That's a popular interpretation; however, there's substantial evidence that both Jesus and his followers knew that Jesus' return would not be in their day. First, Jesus prophecied 1) the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple by the Romans; 2) the dispersing of the Jews to the four corners of the Earth; 3) the preachng of the gospel to all nations; 5) the gathering of the Jews to their ancestral homeland; 6) the re-building of the Temple; 7) the rise of the Antichrist (Gog); 8) the calling of two prophets who will keep them at bay for 3.5 years; and 9) the return of Christ to the Mount of Olives.

John also prophecied that many things must take place.

In Matthew 24, the Lord spoke of the end days and spoke in terms of the "generation" in which they would occur. But the word has never been defined further than it's basic meaning -- generate, generation. Perhaps he has reference to dispensations. The scriptures had reference to the Dispensation of the Fulness of Times, a dispensation in which all things would be brought together. According to ancient Jewish traditions, the return of Elijah and the return of Judah were to happen in the same period of time. Certainly if one takes all the unfulfilled prophecies and lines them out, end to end, it's fairly certain that neither Jesus nor his followers would expect things to all wrap up in their lifetimes. While the Jews died in the tens of thousands by the hands of the Romans, the Christians had been warned by their authorities to flee to the city of Pella, where they would escape.

If one looks at the prophecies in Daniel 2, the vision of the "kingdoms," the first was Babylon; the second was the Persians; the third was the Macedonian empire of Alexander; the fourth was the Roman Empire, and then we see the individual kindoms that would rise after Rome. That prophecy alone would place "the end" far after the lifetimes of Jesus and the apostles. There's every indication that the early Christians understood that many things remained unfulfilled. If the individual Christians themselves expected that Jesus would return in their day, that was their own opinions; however, Jesus and the others were schooled in the scriptures and by revelation. Even in our day, when expectations run high, there are still things that need to happen before Christ can return in glory.

William Miller spawned the Seventh Day Adventists, which in turn splintered into groups that eventually resulted in the Bible Students and the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. They aren't so very far removed.

10

Gambling on Armageddon?

by Cold Steel in

ever since the millerites, many people have been gambling on armageddon and the return of christ.. the conventional view is that god will once again gather his people into the lands of their inheritance from the four corners of the earth, and that once established, the jewish state will build a temple.

a great gentile leader (called "gog" by ezekiel) will then bring a vast army down upon jerusalem and will eventually be destroyed by the returning christ.

according to zachariah, the lord will cause a great earthquake to split the mount of olives, and when the jews first behold their lord, they will ask about the wounds in his hands.

Cold Steel

Ever since the Millerites, many people have been gambling on Armageddon and the return of Christ.

The conventional view is that God will once again gather His people into the lands of their inheritance from the four corners of the Earth, and that once established, the Jewish state will build a temple. A great gentile leader (called "Gog" by Ezekiel) will then bring a vast army down upon Jerusalem and will eventually be destroyed by the returning Christ. According to Zachariah, the Lord will cause a great earthquake to split the Mount of Olives, and when the Jews first behold their Lord, they will ask about the wounds in his hands. He will say that he received them in the house of his friends. Then, says Zacharias, the land will go into mourning as they realize that Jesus was their Messiah.

John, in Revelation, calls Jerusalem the city that is "spiritually" called "Sodom and Egypt," which means that it will be wicked, and that two-thirds of it will fall before the remaining one-third is redeemed. The nations round about Israel will be politically and militarily allied with Gog, and Zachariah adds that the aminosity after the conflict will keep many of the people in those nations from coming to Jerusalem to participate in the Feast of the Tabernacles. The Lord warns that those nations will be afflicted with draught and pestulence until they comply.

The Witnesses say all this is symbolic and that in all due modesty...ahem...they will be the ones the Lord is coming to protect and deliver. But when asked when prophecy was ever delivered in such manners, they can't reply. Prophecy, after all, has always been literal in context. Jesus said that the temple in his day would be destroyed and not one stone would remain standing on top of another. That was literal. And so were all the Old Testament prophecies. When John identifies the city as being the one that "David built," we are not free to assume that "city" means "church" and that "David" means "Christ."

Be that as it may, the Witnesses don't believe that Armageddon has anything to do with Jerusalem and that it has everything to do with them.

My question is this: Do you know of any cases where the imminant expectation of Armageddon has resulted in Witnesses prematurely cashing in their pensions or squandering their savings? After all, why save for the future if there isn't going to be one? Why not enjoy a 42-inch hi-def TV now when I know that Armageddon is coming?

I say this because my brother lost his job and isn't looking for another because he thinks the end is right around the corner! Others I know seem to have just given up. Is it just the current world situation or has this been going on for some time?

How do the Witnesses view the end? After the war, where will Jesus come? Brooklyn? Will he then acknowledge his earthly church and the WBTS? What are the leaders saying now, and do they think they'll be the first ones embraced by the Savior when He returns?

26

WHEN is a simple question--but, the Bible just can't help us answer

by Terry in

as i mentioned in a previous topic, the use of quantity, numbering, dates, measurements and such in the bible is impossibly wonky for several reaasons.. 1. in hebrew, greek and latin there were no separate number symbols exclusively used for math purposes.

instead, letters of their alphabet did double-duty.

2. superstitious ideas about the "meaning" of numbers was rampant and gematria (looking for hidden mysterious in the inherent "number of "words") preoccupied scriptural writing and studies.. 3. calendar changes throughout history (such as the switch from the julian calendar to the gregorian) were haphazardly begun by different countries at different times.

Cold Steel

There are many questions of a theological nature that the Bible can't answer. Just to cite a few:

How does one perform a baptism?

How does one confer the gift of the Holy Spirit?

How does one ordain? And to what offices?

How is the church to be organized? What offices have ascendancy over other offices?

Who can baptize?

What are the "mysteries of the Kingdom of Heaven"?

The Bible is full of information, but it's not a handbook (as many apparently think). We hear of ordinances taking place and we know of various offices within the church, but we don't know anything about the above.

Some people believe that all books of scripture are equal in value, but that's not true. Ecclesiastes is often cited to show that there's no surviving of death as a spirit, but Ecclesiastes was not written by a prophet, neither was it as eschatalogical writing. It is a philosophical writing. Does "spirit" mean "breath" as some teach? Yes, but it also can mean "spirit." So one is back at the drawing board. Peter mentions removing the body as one removes a coat. And there are numerous stories of "life after life" that remain unexplained where correct information is conveyed by spirits that could not be explained by medical brain functions as one nears death.

Witnesses and every other religion just about acknowledges that no scripture is of any private interpretation, but then they go and privately interpret it. But what choice do they have? If the JW leadership has the authority to administer church functions and ordinances, where did they get that authority? How can any of them ordain unless they've been ordained. The sad truth is that someone one day got out of bed and went and ordained someone else, and they did it with not one whit of authority. Then that person went out and ordained, and so it went.

History is said to be a pack of lies agreed upon. The fact is, theology often is a collection of dogma agreed upon, and heaven help you if you don't jump on the band wagon. Remember, if someone excommunicates you, then you might consider turning around and returning the favor. Chances are very high that they have no more authority than do you and vice versa. I think that's what Christ meant when he said that the blind try to lead the blind.

28

If Jesus came in 1914, where is he?

by cyberjesus in

sd-7 thread got me thinking!.

1) so if jesus was in heaven and came in 1914 where exactly was he and where is he now?

is he on earth?

Cold Steel

What...Jesus is BLACK??? Why that's...that's...blasphemous...that's outrageous...that's...that's...!

What's that you say? He's BACK...not BLACK?

Never mind.