i'm beginning to have some doubts about my doubts.
this subject is one of them.. many argue that it is unfair, unloving, and unjust for god to destroy 99.9% of all mankind at armageddon.
but didn't this happen before in the days of noah?
In fact, God had to drive them out before they ate of the tree of everlasting life and could live forever - which is stupid...can't God over-ride what a piece of fruit can do?)
I always wondered why none of the animals in the garden of eden didn't eat from that tree of life, either -
OK. Back on topic - JW Armageddon (which is insane) makes their Jehovah the worst mass murdered in all history.
i'm beginning to have some doubts about my doubts.
this subject is one of them.. many argue that it is unfair, unloving, and unjust for god to destroy 99.9% of all mankind at armageddon.
but didn't this happen before in the days of noah?
sayitsnotso - here is the deal:
The JWs are teaching that their God is going to momentarily come down here on earth and KILL EVERYBODY ON EARTH except for them. They teach that "accepting Jesus" or any other religious thought is not good enough. You have to follow the Watchtower Society writings (even though they have been guilty of multiple false prophecies about Armageddon in the past) - or YOU WILL DIE.
That is criminally insane.
i'm beginning to have some doubts about my doubts.
this subject is one of them.. many argue that it is unfair, unloving, and unjust for god to destroy 99.9% of all mankind at armageddon.
but didn't this happen before in the days of noah?
Okay I will admit that. At some point the senerios people listed have bothered me a bit. And since the WTS cannot provide a simple yes or no answer how can I?
Isn't this obvious? The WTS has one answer internally for themselves - they really think they are the only single religion that will survive the big A. It is often printed in their magazines, like this:
"Similarly, Jehovah is using only one organization today to accomplish his will. To receive everlasting life in the earthly Paradise we must identify that organization and serve God as part of it." Watchtower 1983 Feb. 15 p.12
They have another yes or no non-answer like that 1971 watchtower for blurring their real thoughts to the outside world (who would be repelled by the idea that god is about to kill every non-witness on earth. As per that question from readers:
It would be misleading to answer this question with either a simple “Yes” or a “No.” The Scriptural answer of necessity must be a “qualified” one, and it is easy to see why.
The above question from readers obscures the real JW answer to the question as given in the previous 1983 watchtower quote. Every active witness knows that the JWs believe that JWs are the only people who will survive Armageddon. I find this kind of obfuscation totally dishonest.
Given the fact that every single prophecy they have given yet about Armageddon has failed to come true - I also find what they think about this totally irrelevant.
i'm beginning to have some doubts about my doubts.
this subject is one of them.. many argue that it is unfair, unloving, and unjust for god to destroy 99.9% of all mankind at armageddon.
but didn't this happen before in the days of noah?
It would be misleading to answer this question with either a simple “Yes” or a “No.” The Scriptural answer of necessity must be a “qualified” one, and it is easy to see why.
More weasel worded than a Washington politician. Compare it with the numerous other quotations that others have given you above.
i can understand many argue that scientifically it is impossible for the earth to remain forever (sun dies).
what is wrong with the argument that god could refuel the sun?.
Well, it looks like this has gone off the topic of the earth surviving forever -
I still say clear evidence shows that it will not do so.
i can understand many argue that scientifically it is impossible for the earth to remain forever (sun dies).
what is wrong with the argument that god could refuel the sun?.
OK, was just wondering.
i can understand many argue that scientifically it is impossible for the earth to remain forever (sun dies).
what is wrong with the argument that god could refuel the sun?.
OK, Sylvia - ok.
i can understand many argue that scientifically it is impossible for the earth to remain forever (sun dies).
what is wrong with the argument that god could refuel the sun?.
And if you understood it, wouldn't you be explaining it in words that the inexperienced could understand?
You meant me, Blondie? If so, what is so difficult to understand about the idea that the sun derives its energy from radioactive processes, and that therefore it will last many millions more years - but NOT forever?
i can understand many argue that scientifically it is impossible for the earth to remain forever (sun dies).
what is wrong with the argument that god could refuel the sun?.
But I have a question, has human understanding of physics changed over the years? Has anything thought to be irrevocable been adjusted?
That is the very strength of the scientific method - it never claims to have total and totally accurate knowledge of everything (like the JWs or other bible fundamentalists) - only of the best scientific proof of the time:
As late as approximately 1860-1900 A.D., the leading scientists (including the famous Lord Kelvin) believed that the sun was powered by gravitational contraction. Radioactive processes were only beginning to be understood at the late part of this time.
Kelvin's gravitational sun process would have provided sun's energy for only about 20 million years - far too short to account for Darwinian natural selection, which was also a new development of this time. Lord Kelvin was, however, so famous that his reputation pretty much made Darwin give up on his theories of the age of the earth (at one time he believed earth age was practically infinite).
The answer came from a better understanding of radiation early in the 20th century - Ernest Rutherford among the leaders. This eventually gave rise to modern understanding of the sun process and the age of the solar system.
Still, while the current understanding is of a far older and far longer-lasting sun than earlier science - the sun is still definately not infinite.
i can understand many argue that scientifically it is impossible for the earth to remain forever (sun dies).
what is wrong with the argument that god could refuel the sun?.
For one thing, it would be the only star "refuelled" out of literally millions observed in all stages of star life throughout the galaxy. Making the solar system pretty damn unique - very much like the old Catholic teaching that the earth itself was "the center of the universe". They were pretty annoyed with Gallileo for teaching that the earth orbited the sun - not the other way around.
For another point, you cannot just keep adding more hydrogen - the state of the sun depends on total mass, gravity, temperature, and so on as much as it does on having hydrogen fuel. Also, - how do you get more hydrogen in? There is no "fuel filler" on the sun - and the fusion takes place in the inner depths, as shown by neutrino mapping of the solar process.
Of course, no rational or scientific argument is going to mean anything to the stubborn paradise earther who will simply say "God can do anything" - so for such a person any fantasy is perfectly reasonable because it depends only on "God".
