the answer is, of course, nothing because they don't exist.
but what does a jw think what his kings (and queens???
) do all day long?.
I'm pretty sure the Islamic promise of 72 virgin women for every man would actually be Hell: like the Jerry Seinfeld joke, who would want 71 women staring at them in disappointment, when it's hard enough work to keep even one satisfied? :)
And the 144,000 in heaven? What are their duties? I understand there were new Heavenly songs to be sung, thus praising his glory 24/7 ad infinitum. And all those white robes that are to be washed in blood ain't gunna wash themselves (laundry duty).
howdy guys and gals,.
i am currently researching some material on what watchtower doctrine says with regards to punishments jehovah candish out to us after the thousand year reign and the final test.. my mother (a brilliant woman) always told me that if a human purposefully went against jehovah after the thousand years and the final test, jehovah would instantly put them to death.
is this true?
This sort of reminds me of the crackpot notion that God COULD have foreseen that Adam & Eve would sin, but he actually PREVENTED HIMSELF from foreseeing it.
Which makes "free will" on the part of Adam sort of a moot point in Jehovahland.
Huh, I guess I missed the part in Genesis 2 where YHWH held his Omniscience Ring sky-ward, and shouted, "Deactivate Omniscience Powers!"
But it wouldn't be even THAT simple, for He'd have to "unknow" (AKA forget) ALL ELEMENTS of the future which he already knew, as He was omniscient before creating anything.
He'd have to actively self-induce a BAD case of amnesia, forgetting ALL the future (The Fall, the Jesus' story, the Revelations stuff: in fact, He'd have to forget ALL of it, as it would ALL be a clue to Adam's fall). That pretty much would leave him Incapable of rendering ANY prophecy, including the one that appears at Genesis 3:15 (unless he activated omniscience immediately after the Fall: damn, I'm doing the apologetists work for them!).
Perhaps that partly explains the 1975 failed prophecy, and "the last generation" policy change, LOL!
Oh, I've posted in another thread about how it is incorrect to characterize Adam and Eve as possessing "free will", certainly if using any legal definition of free will. You might read it if you get a chance. YouTube has some parodies of the ridiculous nature of the situation, which ex-JWs might enjoy:
God gets sued for manufacturiing a faulty product, and the failed recall of mankind (AKA the Flood)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cGQvQv9o-Mg
Adam tries to let God down easily...
howdy guys and gals,.
i am currently researching some material on what watchtower doctrine says with regards to punishments jehovah candish out to us after the thousand year reign and the final test.. my mother (a brilliant woman) always told me that if a human purposefully went against jehovah after the thousand years and the final test, jehovah would instantly put them to death.
is this true?
I'm still enjoying the ridicularity and hijinks ensuing from this statement:
The other statement about God’s ability to destroy even an immortal creature rested upon the view that he is absolutely almighty without any limitation upon his own power by even himself.
So, God's omnipotence cannot be limited, EVEN by the so-called Fruitages of His OWN Spirit (repeat after me: love, joy, peace, long-suffering, kindness, goodness, faith, mildness, self-control)? He's not limited, even by those?
Kinda makes sense: for how many of those same fruitages did he demonstrate throughout the OT, violating how many of those "fruitages" when he expressed regret for making mankind before the Flood (flip-flop #1)? So God decided to wipe mankind off the face of the Earth (including innocent infants and animals), only to flip-flop on the issue AGAIN by regretting that (hence the reason given for creating rainbows: it was his Covenant to mankind not to fly off the handle like that even again)?
How comforting to learn from the QFTR that ALL such promises made to mankind are NOT actually legally-binding on Him, just us!
Pretty much what everyone knows: it's GOOD to be God (or at least it's good to be the one the one who claims to speak for God).
howdy guys and gals,.
i am currently researching some material on what watchtower doctrine says with regards to punishments jehovah candish out to us after the thousand year reign and the final test.. my mother (a brilliant woman) always told me that if a human purposefully went against jehovah after the thousand years and the final test, jehovah would instantly put them to death.
is this true?
Interesting to see the use of the term "freedom of choice" vs "free will": there's a subtle semantic difference.
The choice to disobey God CAN be described as "freedom to choose", since it side-steps the problem of God's threat of death penalty for disobeying. We have the freedom of choice to drink strychnine, too, but that doesn't mean you won't die from poisoning.
However, "free will" implies a choice made freely, without undue coercion, under one's own volition, no arm-twisting. I dunno, but I'd say God's "Do what I say or die" death threat can't exactly be characterized as a "free will" choice, since the penalty is guaranteed and the decision is heavily-biased.
So call it "Freedom of choice", fine; but calling it "an exercise of one's free will"? Nope. It certainly ain't that. Hence the term 'free will' cannot properly be used to describe the choice to sin: there's no FREE (as in, "free from consequences") in that.
JW's re-interpret immortality into "everlasting life" or "living forever", which borders on an unconditional claim without clarification: the fine-print is that the offer is only valid IF you continue doing what you're told.
@@@@
The interesting bit to me, though, was this statement:
The other statement about God’s ability to destroy even an immortal creature rested upon the view that he is absolutely almighty without any limitation upon his own power by even himself . So this latter statement presented what seems in accord with this view.
Hmmm, so God's power is NOT limited by ANYTHING, even Himself?
So wouldn't God's unlimited and uncontrollable omnipotence render Him legally incapable of entering into ANY binding contract (AKA a covenant, in the Bible), since it limits his omnipotence?
So does that mean God CAN reverse His prior decisions, change His mind (over-riding the need for omniscience), and arbitrarily re-write the laws at His whim?
But wait: aren't expression(s) of His Divine Will supposed to be immutable, unchangeable? In Psalm 19:7, David testifies to the trustworthiness of God’s Word: “The law of the LORD is perfect, reviving the soul. The statutes of the LORD are trustworthy, making wise the simple."
And since any action that works against His Divine Will is defined as a Sin, wouldn't God be working against His own Divine Will, and thus be sinning, by changing His expressed Divine Will? But God cannot Sin, right?
<cognitive dissonance>
That statement is also an honest admission that ALL those covenants He made with man (eg the covenant of the rainbow, Abrahamic covenant, Messianic, etc) were really just for show, to build up man's fragile egos, as they actually aren't binding on God. Guess not: He can break His word, and there's nothing humans can do about it.
Not that I believe any of it: it's all silly ancient beliefs, hang-overs from hunter-gatherer tribes in the ANE. Nights were long, and they were bored: what ELSE were men supposed to do before the invention of TV, but make up entertaining stories?
ok , why was it necessary for god to places a arm cherubim.
to guard the way to the tree of life?
adam and eve had.
I've also spent time contemplating this story, and there's a few elements I'd like to add for consideration.
You often hear Xians say, "God created A&E with Free Will (FW); He didn't want to create robots who HAD to love Him and obey Him".
Nice, but wrong.
A basic definition of FW: "the ability to make decisions free from coercion."
(think of the typical statement found in a will, "I, John Smith, being of sound mind and body, free from undue coercion and duress...." That's FW.)
So the moment God issued the first-recorded proclamation of Divine Will (DW) in the Bible ("thou shalt not eat of the fruit"), God instantly removed that particular decision from man's FW domain (which would include the choice to eat from any OTHER trees in the Garden, depending on their mood), and placed it under His DW, under HIS DW domain.
In other words, the very issuance of the prohibition meant the subsequent choice to eat of the fruit CANNOT properly be characterized as an exercise of man's FW. Whether God said it explicitly or not, it was NOT optional to obey.
Of course, God does NOT give man the PERMISSION to act against His DW (even under the pretense of man's exercising FW): it's the very definition of sin, and God doesn't give man permission to sin!
@@@@@
Being made "in God's image" refers to possessing similar mental capabilities, senses, capabilities for communication, etc.
However, the ability to determine right from wrong and good from evil refers to man's moral sense, morality, the ability to write our own laws, literally choosing our own path for civilization vs relying on God as the moral lawgiver and moral authority to tell us what to do. That's a common theme throughout the Bible, as it's the very basis of the original sin. Hence, the fruit from the "tree of knowledge of good and bad" imparted a sense of inherent morality, an inner compass, which is something that A&E weren't originally created with: otherwise, there would not be any TEMPTATION to eat!
Need further evidence? They only recognized the wrongness of disobeying God AFTER eating of the "instant-morality" fruit, hence their trying to hide, realizing they were naked (feeling shame over nudity, a common behavior in Genesis, eg Noah's shame after his nakedness), feeling guilt, and trying to blame each other when before God.
The Bible depicts A&E as existing in a child-like state before eating, more evidence suggesting their state of moral diminished-capacity (as if they were created as sociopaths, i.e. humans who are unable to recognize the immorality of their actions, as if operating free of guilt or remorse, or a conscience. An interesting angle to consider is they may in fact HAD been created "in the image of God", with God perhaps having such sociopathic tendencies, as well? How else do you describe YHWH of the OT, who admits to jealousy, orders genocide, etc?).
So once armed with the capacity for determining their own moral course, they in fact HAD become LIKE Gods, feeling enabled to determine morality on their own (although moral toddlers, quivering and incapacitated in the Garden with fear, suddenly aware of the possible dangers around them).
The paradox of A&E is, how could they be held responsible for disobeying God, when they may not have understood the ramifications of their actions at the time they ate? In law, we use a diminished-capacity defense for defendants (e.g. young children) who are incapable of understanding the consequences of their actions at the time they committed a crime. Surely punishing A&E AND their descendants with capital punishment is a bit harsh, if they were operating on diminished capacity?
Point being, God created mankind with perhaps the DESIRE to exercise his FW, but hamstrung them without giving them the capability to exercise it in a responsible fashion (created as amoral beings); but more importantly, he didn't give man His PERMISSION to exercise his FW in the only decision which mattered; to eat the fruit that gave them morality.
(I've often thought that perhaps God should've let A&E eat a little bit of the fruit BEFORE having them decide whether it was good to disobey Him: I know, that would be no fun.... Hence the paradox of the forbidden fruit story. Some have argued that A&E should be thanked for giving man his moral sense, paying a heavy price in bearing the price of mortality.)
@@@@
Of course, this raises other questions, as well:
If God knew that this forbidden fruit had such disastrous consequences for humanity, why did He leave it unguarded in the MIDDLE of the Garden? Principles of reasonable custodianship would require placing the fruit under lock and key, or behind an electric fence (just like you cannot leave sweet-tasting antifreeze out, where animals and toddlers can drink it).
Both God and Serpent told half-truths, AKA "weasel words" (not surprising, being that the story was written by Jews, people who are not exactly strangers to lawyering and legal profession, LOL! The stereotype of a proud Jewish Mother bragging about her son, the lawyer, is not without basis!).
Satan was truthful, in that the fruit DID have the promised effect on their cognitive senses, although he challenged the literal vs figurative interpretation of the word "day".
Since God delivered the death sentence, He made sure that "you will die" bit happened (although he didn't mention that said death wasn't from toxicity of the fruit, but from His blocking access to the Tree of Life).
It's an interesting story, for sure, but I know a creation myth when I see one: the story includes an explanation of why humans die, why child-birth pain exists (interesting that God said the pain would be multiplied, when there's no evidence that Eve even had a frame of reference?) a rationale for male chauvinism/roots of male dominance, and an explanation of why humans (esp women) fear snakes.
i have some jehovah's witness relatives that, whenever the opportunity arises, point out the marvels of design 'evident' in the plant and animal kingdom.
the way they all interact amongst themselves.
marvellous.
Yeah, home schooling is a form of intellectual incest; it's mental in-breeding so no "worldly" thoughts are allowed to corrupt the mental gene pool of the young witness. JWs are like modern-day Amish, availing themselves of fine designer suits and iPhones.
@@@
The Genesis account of Noah's Flood is all you need to consider to realize the Bible is utter nonsense: the impossible naval architecture of the ark, number of species involved, even just from the basic survival angle (uh, fresh water for a year? Hullo!?), etc.
Of course, apolegeticists explain that Noah had something on his side that I'm just not seeing: God Magic! M'kay.
YHWH explains why he is carrying out the Flood (reason: "evil found in the hearts of men", with possibility of Nephilim hankey-pankey), and he expresses regret for having made mankind (can an omniscient being experience regret, a "surprise" emotion? Hmmm....). So he decides to wipe out mankind, including the animals (sound similar to an upcoming event? The Flood was proto-Armageddon, perhaps a beta-test run). Then after wiping out man, he regrets that action (regret #2: flip-flop much?), so creates a rainbow as His Covenant not to do it ever, ever again (and Noah sacrifices a few of the animals He saved, because you know: a convenant being drawn up means some animal is going to have to die).
So, did God succeed in wiping out evil? That would be NO: was I checked, evil is still here. Strike one.
Did God block the loophole that prevented angels from hooking up with hot mortal chicks? Uh, no: there were nephilim before AND after the Flood. Strike two.
That's an awfully LONG story to make up just so you'll have an answer whenever your kid looks up at you and asks, "where do rainbows come from"?
Frankly, all the other rainbow creation myths from around the World (which almost EVERY culture has, including the Chumash tribe of American-Indians) are morally superior to that mess, not involving massive homocide, blind rage, and grovelling. But that's the one that took the Western World by storm, so there you go.... Hard to believe that anyone in this day and age still even bothers with the theories of ancient hunter-gatherer tribes of the Southern Levant.
what has been your experience with this?
observations?.
does it ever work?.
The amazing bit is the narcissism of humans who are only one of 7 billion on this Earth who think that the Almighty Creator is going to find some amusement in monitoring and answering the thoughts and prayers of all of those mortal beings (not to mention the legions of Angels!), and actually respond on a case-by-case basis? WOW.... Let's see how this plays out:
GOD: "Oh, I see that Mrs. Smith of Poughkipsee, NJ, suffered menstrual cramps: Michael, can you see that she gets special attention from an angel, perhaps an invisible comforting touch? She's a faithful regular publisher, with two lovely children who need her in top form."
MICHAEL: "I'LL PERSONALLY GET RIGHT ON THAT, SIR!"
Hint: if your local senator doesn't know or care who the hell you are (on an individual basis), why should the President of the U.S., much less God Almighty, give a whit? It's a very self-centered belief, a hallmark of child-like thinking.
so the local elders where i live recently had a big meeting with the hlc elders and i got a brief summary of what was said.
thought i'd share.. it seems the jws aren't capable of making a decision based on their personal conscience.
they are confused by the whole fraction thing and end up refusing the lot 'just in case' or accepting some and refusing others making them look like idiots.
TD said, "They did it back in 1958 because it was already becoming impossible to live in modern society without accepting a fraction in one form or another at some point in your life."
Yup. Perhaps the same reason the OT/NT never contained scriptures stating policy for use of human blood for medical uses, too? It wasn't even imaginable even to a God claimed to have prophetic powers, and most references prohibiting the eating of animal or human blood are in relation to cultic religious worship practices of their neighbors (although NT no doubt pertains to ancient practice of eating human blood in the diet, due to the misbelief that the practice imparts strength of the "donor" to the "recipient").
Ahh, the foolishness of still trying to apply the physiological beliefs of hunter-gatherer society (who were shifting to an agrarian lifestyle) to the modern age.
so the local elders where i live recently had a big meeting with the hlc elders and i got a brief summary of what was said.
thought i'd share.. it seems the jws aren't capable of making a decision based on their personal conscience.
they are confused by the whole fraction thing and end up refusing the lot 'just in case' or accepting some and refusing others making them look like idiots.
BTW, on the fraction issue, a barrel of crude oil is broken down (refined or distilled) into a number of derivative products, such as gasoline, diesel, petrochemicals, etc. But that doesn't change the fact they were derived from crude oil; and possess the properties of the source. To say that RBC are not whole blood is disingenuous legalese quibbling (which is not surprising, what you'd expect from a Society with presidents from the legal profession, eg JUDGE Rutherford). Interesting that the WTBTS says that blood fractions are OK, as if disassembling a stolen car in a chop shop somehow protects the thief from being charged with Grand Theft Auto. Hint: it doesn't. So why did the Society do this? Hmmm, here's a wild guess: maybe they realize the liability exposure they'd face from wrongful death lawsuits, when a non-believing family member hires a living, breathing lawyer to take them to court over their DF policy? Ya' don't think THAT could have something to do with it? Making it a "matter of conscience" absolves the Society of legal liability, as the decision is solely on the person, not the Society. It's a prudent legal move under this "system of things", yes, but they're exposing themselves as being hypocrites, re-writing clear passages in the OT and NT. The GB is thus the unfaithful and indiscreet slave who disobeys the commands of the master given before he left. Of course, that WAS the whole point of the Parable of the "Faithful and Wise Slave": it was a cautionary tale of woe for the unfaithful slave who doesn't follow his instructions to a tee. PS anyone know why the JW's NWT is the ONLY one to replace the greek word translated as "Wise" by all others, instead using "Discreet"? Odd choice of words, esp in reference to a slave/servant that may have information of indescretions of the Master that need to be protected.
after my creaming experience i have another account i would like to share.. .
many many years ago i was assigned to a london congregation as an mts grad.
i found myself a room.
There's the story of a young man who went camping in the Highlands of UK with his girlfriend, and they heard wild demonic screeching in the middle of the night while in their tent. The experience was so horrifying it convinced him to enter seminary training. Little know to them, the area was native habitat to a bird species which locals named "the demon bird", due to it's distinctive and fearful call at night....
More common though, is a well-known phenomena known as night terrors, sleep paralysis, wherein a person is half-asleep, but senses a fearsome presence of a spirit trying to crush them, rape them, etc, and the victim is powerless to move. Look it up on wikipedia: VERY common, like 10-20% of population may experience it. In fact, there was a sister in the congregation who had exactly that experience, and I remember we went over to her house to comfort her after she called in a panic later in the day. Everyone was thinking demonic possession, when it was just an episode of night terrors.
But I think it's ALWAYS a good idea to blame the Devil whenever you encounter a fearsome unknown, right?
It's the flip-side of the saying "God did it" whenever anything good happens (such as who created life).
