Posts by Vanderhoven7

69

Is Annihilation of the Unrepentant Wicked Justice?

by Ding in

we all understand the justice argument against hell: the idea that god might decide that a wicked person's sins merit everlasting conscious punishment offends our sense of justice.. do even hitler's sins merit never-ending conscious punishment for all eternity?.

we know that the wtbts takes an annihilationist view of the "everlasting" punishment described by the bible.. they teach that there is no separate "soul" or "spirit" that survives physical death and that the ultimate fate of the unrepentant wicked is annihilation by jehovah.. let's assume for the sake of argument that they are right.. is this justice?.

over the years, the wtbts has flip-flopped on whether or not these wicked people will be resurrected for purposes of judgment or whether they simply will remain dead with no hope of any sort of resurrection.. let's look at various possibilities.

Vanderhoven7

A Parable

There were two Jewish brothers. One, was a good family man who tried to be honest and diligent in duty as he struggled to raise his young family. But he unfortunately is arrested and incinerated in a Nazi death camp for the crime of being Jewish. Prior to his arrest he meets a hyper-Calvinist who tells him about a God who planned, out of His unfathonable love, to graciously save about 10% of men; but pre-assigned the remaining 90% of human beings he would create to eternal torture. He could save everybody, but of course....it is His equally unfathonable intention to have the majority of mankind, for His glory, eternally tortured. This is the only "gospel" this Jewish man ever hears and so he says he cannot accept any of this. .....The other brother ended up a wicked serial killer. He was also arrested but just before his death, God opens His eyes, he repents and believes that Jesus died for his sins.

In the judgment, the second man meets Jesus, who says, "Welcome to paradise".

To the second brother Jesus says: "You sir will be tormented for all eternity because you failed to respond to the gospel of the grace of God". "I never heard the truth to respond to it" replies the first brother!" "Doesn't matter", shouts Jesus, "this is divine justice at work". And so the second brother enters paradise while the first brother burns forever....along with wife and His children who had just reached the scriptural age of accountability.

Is this the justice of God? Or is there something wrong with this picture?

What will happen to those Christians whose failed to show the love of God to others, who brought forth wood, hay and stubble instead of gold, silver and precious jewels? What fire must they pass through; what stripes must they endure? What loss must they suffer for squandering their gifts and talents?

Vander

7

How do you add to your profile info and replace your graphic

by Vanderhoven7 in

somehow i blocked all the wacky generated graphics?

how does get into profile info and add and change stuff?.

vander.

Vanderhoven7

Help!

Somehow I blocked all the wacky generated graphics? How does get into profile info and add and change stuff?

Vander

69

Is Annihilation of the Unrepentant Wicked Justice?

by Ding in

we all understand the justice argument against hell: the idea that god might decide that a wicked person's sins merit everlasting conscious punishment offends our sense of justice.. do even hitler's sins merit never-ending conscious punishment for all eternity?.

we know that the wtbts takes an annihilationist view of the "everlasting" punishment described by the bible.. they teach that there is no separate "soul" or "spirit" that survives physical death and that the ultimate fate of the unrepentant wicked is annihilation by jehovah.. let's assume for the sake of argument that they are right.. is this justice?.

over the years, the wtbts has flip-flopped on whether or not these wicked people will be resurrected for purposes of judgment or whether they simply will remain dead with no hope of any sort of resurrection.. let's look at various possibilities.

Vanderhoven7

Hi Ding,

<<I'm really surprised no one has stepped forward to defend annihilation of the unrepentant wicked as justice>>

Actually I am surprized when anyone offers to defend eternal torment as being justice for human sin.

Do you believe a human judge would be equally just in sentencing a person to torture for the rest of his/her natural life as punishment for murder? Please answer this Ding. Why or why not?

Consider, compared to the God, this would be merciful punishment. I mean how many electric shocks can an organ (like a tongue for example) take before it sensory nerves are deadened and there is no pain experienced. So justice then would require moving along to other body parts. But sadly, pretty soon all body parts would be deadened to pain. Then what further justice could a more merciful than God judge mete out till the person expires? Well, looking back, the Catholic Church could supply some interesting ideas on how to continue to apply divine justice. So far we have only dealt with the surface. There is deeper pain, greater thresholds of divine justice for us to aspire to.

Why do you think murderers don't want to be judged in a state that has the death penalty?

God's justice for murders was instituted after the flood. And torture was not the punishment.

Vander

169

Rich Man and Lazarus

by Ding in

i have never understood the watchtower's explanation of the rich man and lazarus story jesus told in luke 16. of course, they don't believe jesus is talking about what happens in an "afterlife" after people die.. but from the watchtower's point of view:.

1. who are the five brothers?.

2. why can't lazarus go witness to them?

Vanderhoven7

Well, what do we have?

Three possible literary forms:

If, "historical narration", then at least one rich person dressed in purple is tormented in flames for an indeterminate period, and probably also his five brothers followed on because they would not repent of dressing in purple, being rich and eating extremely well. The fact that Abraham was rich isn't really a problem if we assume he hated purple and Sarah was a terrible cook. The fact that Jesus was teaching the Pharisees something they and their followers already believed and taught themselves about the afterlife isn't a problem either...because the Pharisees had no idea that rich people with purple clothing who eat well end up in torment as well. So they certainly learned one important truth: If bad now becomes good later, good now becomes very bad later.

If "parable", then we are free to guess authoritatively that everyone else but members of our group will end up in a bad situation...if they don't see things the way we do. Jesus liked to make things complicated so we could all make up our own truths about what this clear parable teaches. Hades doesn't mean "Hades", neither the rich man, nor Abraham are "real persons"; death, doesn't mean "death", burial, doesn't mean "burial"; in fact nobody in the story really"dies" etc. etc. Very complicated - no? But also very clear. You see, Jesus liked to use pagan teachings that people erroneously believed at the time and base truths on demonic doctrine. Very clever - yes?

If "satire", then the Pharisees and their claims to holiness are undermined. But the problem is, Jesus would not enter Pharisiac tradition and mock their reality would He? Not in the eyes of the people...no way? Jesus is a nice guy and all that. He liked to see the Pharisees look good and righteous, even if they wouldn't lift a finger to help the poor. - right? After all, unjust stewards who make friends of the mammon of unrighteousness will be commended by God and eternally rewarded - no?

Glad we finally cleared that up.

;^)

Vander

169

Rich Man and Lazarus

by Ding in

i have never understood the watchtower's explanation of the rich man and lazarus story jesus told in luke 16. of course, they don't believe jesus is talking about what happens in an "afterlife" after people die.. but from the watchtower's point of view:.

1. who are the five brothers?.

2. why can't lazarus go witness to them?

Vanderhoven7

Hi DJ

<<You seem to want to turn this thread from one as to the meaning of Jesus' parable about the rich man and Lazarus into one in which we explore the meanings of certain Greek words, but I have no such interest.>>

Not at all. I asked you to define the words you used and the assertions you made using them.

<<To know God means to come into His acquaintance and to continually take in knowledge of Him so as to come to know or understand God's ways; it means to essentially love those things that God loves and hate those things that He hates. (John 17:3; Romans 12:9) To know God, too, one has "through use have [come to have] their perceptive powers trained to distinguish both right and wrong." (Hebrews 5:14) As a part of his prayer to God, Jesus told his heavenly Father at John 17:25 that "the world has, indeed, not come to know you; but I have come to know you, and these have come to know that you sent me forth.">>

Anyone can say they know God DJ. Anyone can even say they "know God completely" and that they love what He loves and hate what He hates and sincerely believe they distinguish right from wrong and live a life fully approved by God. But then again, self appraisal is not the essential criteria. To many who call him Lord" Jesus will say "I never knew you, depart from me you workers of iniquity" (Mt.7:23). You quoted the scripture, "God knows them that are His"(II Tim.2:19). I do not know you and your dedication to Jehovah and His Son from a hole in the wall; so I will not judge that you know or do not know Father and Son (Jn.17:3) lest I assume a prerogative of God and call unclean what He declares clean.

Now on what basis have you judged and asserted that I do not know God and that God does not know me.

<<I see you tried to get a cute "Yes-No" thing going, but, assuming your dates are correct, your recitation of these dates was a bit out of order, so, as you can see, I reordered them. In this case, it seems you could have omitted #4 and #5, and doing this would have shortened your "Yes-No" thing.>>

Not cute; just factual. But thanks for pointing out my recording errors DJ? I'll try again:

Will the Sodomites be resurrected?

Yes….Watchtower July/1879 p.8
No…..Watchtower June1, 1952 p.338
Yes….Watchtower August 1, 1965 p.479
No…..Watchtower June 1, 1988 p. 31
Yes.....Live Forever (first edition) p. 179
No......Live Forever (later edition) p. 179
Yes….Insight Vol. 2, p. 985
No…..Revelation, p. 273

Vander

169

Rich Man and Lazarus

by Ding in

i have never understood the watchtower's explanation of the rich man and lazarus story jesus told in luke 16. of course, they don't believe jesus is talking about what happens in an "afterlife" after people die.. but from the watchtower's point of view:.

1. who are the five brothers?.

2. why can't lazarus go witness to them?

Vanderhoven7

Hi PS,

Absolutely nothing....as illustrated by the many 180 degree reversals in the channel of truth. It's called tacking in the wind....Watchtower style.

Will the Sodomites be resurrected?

Yes….Watchtower July/1879 p.8
No…..Watchtower June/1/1952 p.338
Yes….Watchtower August/1/1965 p.479
No…..Watchtower June/1/1988 p.31
Yes.....Watchtower October/15/1974 p. 20
No......Watchtower June/1/1988 p. 30
Yes….Live Forever (first edition) p. 179
No…..Live Forever (later edition) p. 179

This illustrates the fact that the primary faith of JWs is in men, not the Bible. Doctrinal modifications made by the GB always act as a corrective to change what JWs believe the Bible teaches. However, the Bible can never legitimately act as a corrective to change a JW's beliefs contrary to the organization's teachings. After all...it's the organizations' book; it wasn't written for the other sheep. Only the priesthood understands it. Ultimately then, their faith is in men who claim to speak for God. Effectively the Holy Spirit, is replaced by a group of self-acclaimed Bible scholars who can give any spin on doctrine they decide is the truth for the moment. Their interpretations must be considered right...because they were invisibly selected in April of 1919 to act as His sole channel of communication to mankind. Can't argue facts. No matter how many time "Yes" changes to "No", it must be believed....or Armageddon will get you. It's not truth that matters; it's how you treat the elect remnant represented by the leaders in Brooklyn.

But you know all this...so I'm just rambling. :^)

169

Rich Man and Lazarus

by Ding in

i have never understood the watchtower's explanation of the rich man and lazarus story jesus told in luke 16. of course, they don't believe jesus is talking about what happens in an "afterlife" after people die.. but from the watchtower's point of view:.

1. who are the five brothers?.

2. why can't lazarus go witness to them?

Vanderhoven7

Hi DJ,

<<...what I cannot accept is your appropriation and perversion of the apostle Paul's words at 2 Timothy 3:7, for, in context, the ones about whom Paul was speaking were men that only had "a form of godly devotion," who were "disapproved as regards the faith," and who were resisting the truth, in that they had exploited their positions in God's household by working their way into households and making those yet weak in faith their captives, so that they were "always learning and yet never able to come to an accurate knowledge of truth." (2 Timothy 3:2-8) You twisted Paul's words at 2 Timothy 3:7, which obscures the fact that those "never able to come to an accurate knowledge of truth" were the ones that such "wicked men and imposters" were misleading. (2 Timothy 3:13)>>

This is perhaps more descriptive of Jehovah's Witnesses than you are cabable of seeing at this point in time DJ. I don't think Jannes and Jambres led silly women captive, but as opposers, they certainly shared some of the charateristics of the false false teachers Paul warns about.

<<You may be putting your faith in God, but your knowledge of the true God is incomplete, so you cannot know God, and neither does God know you. (Galatians 4:9)>>

I cannot accept your misappropriation of Galations 4:9. I take it that you consider your knowledge of God complete and that you therefore know (ginosko) Him. I must ask you to define your terms and support your assertions. Firstly, what constitutes complete knowledge of God? Secondly, what proof do you have that you have this complete knowledge? Thirdly, what scripture/s demonstrate that complete knowledge is the bases of knowing and being known of Him?

And further please substantiate your assertion that I do not know God and that God does not know me.

Vander

169

Rich Man and Lazarus

by Ding in

i have never understood the watchtower's explanation of the rich man and lazarus story jesus told in luke 16. of course, they don't believe jesus is talking about what happens in an "afterlife" after people die.. but from the watchtower's point of view:.

1. who are the five brothers?.

2. why can't lazarus go witness to them?

Vanderhoven7

Hi DJ,

"...Jehovah's Witnesses are generally advised to keep their distance from apostates, since they typically will have learned everything that most Jehovah's Witnesses know from having studied the Bible with Jehovah's Witnesses, except, lacking humility, they have failed to obtain more than a cursory knowledge of the true God."

The WTS likes to paint all with the same brush. They can't imagine that some have simply realized that the religion of Jehovah's Witnesses is not biblical and requires that one put faith in men which is contrary to God's word. Ps.118:9, 146:3

"It can take 20, 30, even 40 years to become "solid in the faith," for only those, who have taken up "the large shield of faith" that are able to withstand, even quench, any missile launched by God's enemies. (1 Peter 5:9; Ephesians 6:16)"

Mormons will tell you the same thing...and their religion is just as unbiblical as yours.

"I noticed that you quoted something you read in a 1952 issue of the Watchtower, but you would be incompetent to think that Jehovah's Witnesses today are being taught according to what was being taught in 1952 or 1920 or even 1879."

Does WTS "truth" change so often that you or I cannot quote yesterday's Awake? What you have written, you have written. Take responsibilty for it. I say you, because you promote whatever is being taught or changed....and therefore share the guilt of your leaders. The fact that you keep changing your unique dogmas illustrates that your religion is not biblical and cannot be trusted. Biblical truth does not change. So your religion which frequently changes, even reversing it's teachings 180 degrees and later reverting back to former positions, just illustrates that Jehovah's Witnesses are ever learning but never coming to the knowledge of the truth. (2Tim.3:7)

"While there are some who would have been disfellowshipped for apostasy in those years, those taking the lead in God's organization have now learned to take up God's view on the matter, and so elders today are not only distinguishing between those with legitimate questions and concerns, and those who seek to make trouble for Jehovah's Witnesses with a view to perverting the good news about the Christ. (Galatians 1:7)"

Actually, it is the Watchtower Society that is perverting the good news by preaching a gospel Paul never heard of... based only on the speculations and imaginations of men. (Gal. 1:7-9; I Cor.15:1-4)

"I think it rather strange that you would be quoting from any WTS publication, even from the NWT Bible, to someone that is actively one of Jehovah's Witnesses,..."

Why so? And if I knew you were "active" would I have asked you if you were "in good standing"?

"...which suggests that you are one of those that Jehovah cleaned up from your filth, stripping away your Philistine pride, removing the bloodstained things from your mouth and the disgusting things from between your teeth so that you were once a sheik in Judah (Zechariah 9:7) But you have since returned to your Philistine ways and think that my God, Jehovah God, recognized you as a worshipper of His, totally deluding yourself in believing you fooled the true God. Sure, you had some fooled, but you would be a fool to think that you managed to fool Jehovah."

How does pointing out that your religion is not biblical make one a Philistine DJ? I assure you that the only one deluding himself, is you. I was never a JW. You obviously did not see or pay attention to my video on your organization's mythological foundations. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LowZJLAiJQ

<<What things you read in the Bible and what things are quoted from the Bible in WTS publications are sacred things, and if I know that you are one not having appreciation for sacred things, why would you expect any worshipper of the true God to listen to you quote scriptures?>>

How can "truth" in WTS publications, now recognized as error, be sacred? You worship men DJ and the fact that you identify and treat former "truth" which is really error, as sacred, proves this. You vindicate men, not God and His Word.

"The NWT and all of the WTS publications that are dedicated to Jehovah, which you now trample upon underfoot with contempt belong to Jehovah. (Matthew 7:6)"

I quoted your literature and informed you that your religion, as promoted in your literature, is not biblical. The WTS therefore is in contempt of Jehovah. Adding to the word of God has oft proven Jehovah's Witnesses liars.

"You will only benefit yourself should you decide to return to us, and if you should ever decide in the future to do so, it would behoove you to make a real effort to build up your faith in Jehovah and in His word, the Bible."

My faith is in God and His word; yours on the contrary, is in men and their words; it's that simple DJ.

Vander

169

Rich Man and Lazarus

by Ding in

i have never understood the watchtower's explanation of the rich man and lazarus story jesus told in luke 16. of course, they don't believe jesus is talking about what happens in an "afterlife" after people die.. but from the watchtower's point of view:.

1. who are the five brothers?.

2. why can't lazarus go witness to them?

Vanderhoven7

Hi DJ,

Even apostates? ;^)

<<Especially with apostates...>>

Are you a Jehovah's Witnesses in good standing?

I say that's kind of you. But aren't you advised to hate apostates and have nothing to do with them aside from what is necessary?

"Apostasy is, in reality, a rebellion against Jehovah. Some apostates profess to know and serve God, but they reject teachings or requirements set out in his Word. Others claim to believe the Bible, but they reject Jehovah's organization and actively try to hinder its work. When they deliberately choose such badness after knowing what is right, when the bad becomes so ingrained that it is an inseparable part of their makeup, then a Christian must hate (in the Biblical sense of the word) those who have inseparably attached themselves to the badness. True Christians share Jehovah's feelings toward such apostates; they are not curious about apostate ideas. On the contrary, they "feel a loathing" toward those who have made themselves God's enemies, but they leave it to Jehovah to execute vengeance." Watchtower 1993 October 1 p.19

"Haters of God and his people are to be hated, but this does not mean that we will take any opportunity of bringing physical hurt to them in a spirit of malice or spite, for both malice and spite belong to the Devil, whereas pure hatred does not. We must hate in the truest sense, which is to regard with extreme and active aversion, to consider as loathsome, odious, filthy, to detest. Surely any haters of God are not fit to live on his beautiful earth. The earth will be rid of the wicked and we shall not need to lift a finger to cause physical harm to come to them, for God will attend to that, but we must have a proper perspective of these enemies. His name signifies recompense to the enemies." Watchtower 1952 October 1 p.599

"Is strict avoidance really necessary? Yes for several reasons. ... In other cases, the disfellowshipped relative may be living outside the immediate family circle and home. Although there might be a need for limited contact on some rare occasion to care for a necessary family matter, any such contact should be kept to a minimum."Keep Yourself in God's Love (2008) pp.207,208

"disfellowshiping" is what Jehovah's Witnesses appropriately call the expelling and subsequent shunning of such an unrepentant wrongdoer.... a simple "Hello" to someone can be the first step that develops into a conversation and maybe even a friendship. Would we want to take that first step with a disfellowshiped person?" WT Sept 15, 1981 pp.22,25

Vander

169

Rich Man and Lazarus

by Ding in

i have never understood the watchtower's explanation of the rich man and lazarus story jesus told in luke 16. of course, they don't believe jesus is talking about what happens in an "afterlife" after people die.. but from the watchtower's point of view:.

1. who are the five brothers?.

2. why can't lazarus go witness to them?

Vanderhoven7

Hi DJ,

"I will discuss the Bible with anyone"

Even apostates? ;^)

P.S. I'm thinking of a specific brand of apostate here...i.e. that being a former member of your organization who has been disfellowshipped either for expressing beliefs or engaging in practices which are contrary to extra-biblical WTS teachings and practices. I can list some of those if you like. I'm thinking of serious offenses like saying light did not flash from heaven in 1935 or having a birthday party for your kid every year. You know, stuff like that.