Posts by InterestedOne

64

We all die, so why bother with Jehovah if the worst is annihilation?

by InterestedOne in

i was wondering what a jw could say to a person who doesn't care about "serving jehovah.

" the person could ask, "so what if i don't serve jehovah?

" if i understand jw belief correctly, they will say, "then you'll cease to exist.

InterestedOne

You know, if you're afraid to die, then just don't do it. Nobody's pressuring you, you know...

I'm confused by the above. Can you explain?

64

We all die, so why bother with Jehovah if the worst is annihilation?

by InterestedOne in

i was wondering what a jw could say to a person who doesn't care about "serving jehovah.

" the person could ask, "so what if i don't serve jehovah?

" if i understand jw belief correctly, they will say, "then you'll cease to exist.

The idea of judgement/justice is interesting. On one hand, it seems like people are getting off scot-free if they just cease to exist. On the other hand, I don't see why someone who lives an average life, does some things wrong & some things right, would deserve an eternal punishment of conscious suffering. That seems like an unfair punishment.

2

Announcing who is "sick?"

by InterestedOne in

i have a newbie question: i've noticed the elder announces the name of someone who is in the hospital, then he announces a bunch of names of other people who are "sick.

" is this one of those jw-isms where a word can have two meanings: physically sick or "spiritually" sick?

is this a way that elders announce the names of people who might be involved in "sins?

InterestedOne

I have a newbie question: I've noticed the elder announces the name of someone who is in the hospital, then he announces a bunch of names of other people who are "sick." Is this one of those JW-isms where a word can have two meanings: physically sick or "spiritually" sick? Is this a way that elders announce the names of people who might be involved in "sins?" Can someone enlighten me on this?

6

A question about the missionary mind

by dgp in

on another thread (http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/watchtower/beliefs/203906/1/we-all-die-so-why-bother-with-jehovah-if-the-worst-is-annihilation), interested one posted that.

i was wondering what a jw could say to a person who doesn't care about "serving jehovah.

" the person could ask, "so what if i don't serve jehovah?

InterestedOne

Wow, Ding, you're right. I didn't think of it that way. If you have in mind that a person is committing suicide, you will try by all means to stop them. I'm going to have to process that and re-evaluate how I interact with my JW friend. This whole thing can really mess with your head.

64

We all die, so why bother with Jehovah if the worst is annihilation?

by InterestedOne in

i was wondering what a jw could say to a person who doesn't care about "serving jehovah.

" the person could ask, "so what if i don't serve jehovah?

" if i understand jw belief correctly, they will say, "then you'll cease to exist.

InterestedOne

DanaBug wrote:

Well, there is Armageddon, which looks pretty painful and terrifying in illustrations. But if you die before it comes, you get around that.

I was thinking about that, but I don't know of any promise that JW's will not suffer during the big A (correct me if I'm wrong). There is only the promise that they will survive it. Then they build the paradise in which there will be no suffering. Wow. It could almost be interpreted in a more general secular way - one group has "the truth," i.e. knows how things are supposed to be, there is a big war that wipes out everyone except those in the special group, the special group survives and builds a paradise. Just a tangent there.

Heaven wrote:

2) You risk your family if they decide to kick you out because they decide you aren't good enough including the items listed in #1 above.

I think this (also applied to friends) is one of the more meaningful threats the JW's present. I could see how people who don't care about ceasing to exist or riding lions, etc. would still participate in this group just to be able to interact with their friends who would otherwise cut them off for the most part. Quite a threat indeed.

64

We all die, so why bother with Jehovah if the worst is annihilation?

by InterestedOne in

i was wondering what a jw could say to a person who doesn't care about "serving jehovah.

" the person could ask, "so what if i don't serve jehovah?

" if i understand jw belief correctly, they will say, "then you'll cease to exist.

InterestedOne

Religious people who believe in a punishment of conscious eternal suffering (e.g. many Christians) can use that threat to motivate an uninterested person and use it as a reason to continue the dialogue - i.e. "I care about you and don't want you to suffer for all eternity." I was just wondering if JW's have any kind of intense threat like that to provide motivation. If I understand correctly, the only threat they can present is that you will cease to exist. I can't imagine most people would think that's a big deal. Just so I'm clear, is this the extent of the JW message: serve Jehovah by obeying the WT org and maybe you'll go to paradise, or don't obey the org and cease to exist? Is that it?

11

Little goodies I found.

by Sharpie in

hey folks.

i don't post here much, i usually read and get encouragement from all you people out here :) but i'm asking for your advice/help/sugestions.. .

i did some cleaning in my garage today and oh my god.. i found russel's thy kingdom come.. ray franz's famous aid to bible understanding.. .

InterestedOne

Honesty...does the old version NWT use "worship" instead of "obeisance"?...sorry to go off topic.

Yes. In the green one, Heb 1:6 says:

But when he again brings his First-born into the inhabited earth, he says: "And let all God's angels worship him."

They will say new light has corrected this. They will also say that "obeisance" is a more conservative, unbiased word. When you ask them why they still use "worship" when it refers to Jehovah, they will say there is no question about whether the writer meant "worship" when referring to Jehovah. However, since they feel there could be some question as to whether or not the writer would have meant "worship" in the case of Jesus, they prefer to use the more generic "obeisance." I don't know if they are being reasonable here or not because I'm not a Bible scholar, but that is the explanation I've heard. Something seems fishy, but everything with this group seems fishy to me.

64

We all die, so why bother with Jehovah if the worst is annihilation?

by InterestedOne in

i was wondering what a jw could say to a person who doesn't care about "serving jehovah.

" the person could ask, "so what if i don't serve jehovah?

" if i understand jw belief correctly, they will say, "then you'll cease to exist.

InterestedOne

I was wondering what a JW could say to a person who doesn't care about "serving Jehovah." The person could ask, "so what if I don't serve Jehovah?" If I understand JW belief correctly, they will say, "then you'll cease to exist." The person can say, "so why bother?" I know the JW can present the positive motivation of paradise, but what if the person doesn't care about that? Is there any kind of negative motivation like, "you better serve Jehovah or else..." Or else what? You die & cease to exist? So? We all die. It seems like the JW would have nothing more to say except, "ok, have a nice day, and I won't see you in paradise," and the person can say, "ok, have a nice day, and I'm content just ceasing to exist." Is that it, or is there something else the JW can say to motivate the HH?

64

Jesus' Physical Resurrection = Take the Ransom Back?

by InterestedOne in

in my "study," we have encountered the matter of whether or not jesus' physical body rose from the dead.

i brought up a couple of scriptures that seem to indicate physical (john 2:18-22 and john 10:17,18).

the jw's i am "studying" with explained how, although those verses may appear to indicate physical, jesus couldn't have meant that because if he physically rose from the dead, he would have taken back the ransom.. now that i know the wt reasoning on this, can someone point me to another source, link, book, article, etc.

InterestedOne

All of your comments are helping me to get some perspective on this, not just the JW slant, but I am wondering about something Ding said which was:

. . . Jesus' own words to his disciples that he was NOT a spirit . . .

How do you reconcile this with 1 Cor 15:45:

"The first man Adam became a living being”; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit.

It's refering to Jesus as -a- spirit.

64

Jesus' Physical Resurrection = Take the Ransom Back?

by InterestedOne in

in my "study," we have encountered the matter of whether or not jesus' physical body rose from the dead.

i brought up a couple of scriptures that seem to indicate physical (john 2:18-22 and john 10:17,18).

the jw's i am "studying" with explained how, although those verses may appear to indicate physical, jesus couldn't have meant that because if he physically rose from the dead, he would have taken back the ransom.. now that i know the wt reasoning on this, can someone point me to another source, link, book, article, etc.

InterestedOne

Ask your JW friend if Jesus manufactured another body with FAKE wounds in its hands and side in order to convince Thomas that those were the wounds he received when he died. Wouldn't that make Jesus a charlatan?

I brought this up too. They said he had to "materialize" in physical bodies to show people that he was alive in the spirit realm. Because people can't see the spirit realm, he had to appear to them in some form they could see and touch. They said the incident with the nail wounds was just to appease Thomas. They say his "materializations" are the same as when angels materialized in the Hebrew scriptures.

In addition to the "take back the ransom" argument, they said there is no way he could be raised physically because he ascended to heaven. Because "heaven" is a spirit realm, he could not have had a physical body. To support this, they quote 1 Pet 3:18 and 1 Cor 15:45.

Regarding the "take back the ransom" argument, I think TrueScript is hitting on something, and I would like to see it expanded further. I feel like something is wrong with their arguments, but I can't put my finger on it.