Posts by starScream

50

Hell

by onacruse in

i was recently asked about my opinion re: hell.. as a born-and-raised jw i obviously never believed in hell-fire torment.

actually, i refuse to believe in such a thing.

for many years my favorite response to the idea was "i would rather burn in hell than worship a god who would create such a place.".

starScream

Literal physical torture by hellfire is not likely even if there is a place of eternal punishment.

Ultimately both sides; those that deny hell exists, and those that say it does exist have compelling biblical support.

For those that say it does exist there are a few passages that make it necessary which is why I agree with them more.

At Matt. 25:41 Jesus describes the eternal destiny of the damned as a literal place that was created for the devil and his angels. You can't really prepare a state of nonexistence beforehand. Those cocepts clash. You can prepare a place though.

At Rev 22:14 Jesus speaks of the Saints going into the Holy City after the final Judgement but with reference to the city Jesus says that those who practice sin (or the damned) are still existing only outside of the city. By this point they should not exist if they weren't going to exist. The second death should have happened already. So it seems the second death is still further separation from God -- the ultimate separation while still existing.

At Rev 14:10-11 John describes those who recieve the mark of the beast as being tormented by fire and sulphur and that "the smoke of their torment" ascends forever and ever. Also they recieve no rest day or night. This seems to refer to their ultimate destiny and that they will never rest from torment. In the armageddon account nothing like this is described so it is most likely the lake of fire which is described as fire and sulphur also.

there are plenty of scriptures that seem to speak of the eternal punishment as not literally "hellfire." At Jude 13 Jude says that for the damned, 'blackest darkness' (NIV) or 'blackness of darkness' (NWT) (not sure which one is better although NWT had a nice ring their) has been reserved forever. Some would say this is annihilation describing what the annihilated would experience. The problem is he should have just said nonexistence has been reserved forever. If you don't exist you can't experience blackest darkness or the blackness of darkness.

I only see one scripture in which the eternal punishment could be said to be annihilation. At Matt. 10:28 Jesus to be afraid of the One who can destroy both body and soul in hell. It may sound like annihilation is being described but with reference to the One Jesus uses the word destroy and with reference to "those" he uses the word kill. It curious to note he did not use equal terminology.

I think the body of NT scriputre shows an eternal state of existence for the damned although you can't rule out annihilation universally. It does not seem to be a literal physical burning torment in light of scriptures like Jude 13. Either way I think ultimately it is a toss up if you are sola scriptura. I just wonder why so many cults can't stand the idea of hell in any form but the people who are right about the rest of the bible for the most part don't agree with the cults on that doctrine.

It could be that the cults are so legalistic they themselves are afraid they may suffer the second death and just want to get a break and not exist. Otherwise they might not be able to be so legalistic and make it so hard to get salvation if they are so at risk of going to hell.

They also like to be really really exclusive and make salvation dependent on ridiculous nuances that no one else would or not many have come up with to make them the only true people of God. Something that is very stupid but even dumber if they stick to the hell teaching.

44

Doubting the Trinity and Paradise

by ClassAvenger in

i don't doubt the trinity, but again i had a talk with one of my jw friends and he gave me several bible passages which he wants me to explain, most deal with the trinity, and others deal with the belief in heaven.

he says that they show that jesus was less than his father, and was a separate person, and the others state that paradise will be here on earth.

argument: how come no one has seen god, not even jesus?

starScream

DJ,

I showed my mom that ans she went pale but then she questioned the elders and they told her that THAT great crowd is angels.

Correct me if I am wrong, but it can't be the Angels because they shout SALVATION and glory and power belong to our God... Angels have no salvation.

but check this out. Im sure you have seen matt 8:11 where JESUS says Abraham, Isaac and Jacob will be in Heaven. You might want to explain to her that the wedding feast of the lamb happens in heaven for all the saints and then>>> Rev 21:1-2 where the old heaven and the old earth are gone and new jerusalem comes down out of heaven prepared AS A BRIDE dressed for her husband...3 the dwelling of God is with MEN and HE will live WITH them. They will be his people and God himself will live WITH them and HE will be their God.

heaven comes to earth. that is the new heavens and the new earth.

44

Doubting the Trinity and Paradise

by ClassAvenger in

i don't doubt the trinity, but again i had a talk with one of my jw friends and he gave me several bible passages which he wants me to explain, most deal with the trinity, and others deal with the belief in heaven.

he says that they show that jesus was less than his father, and was a separate person, and the others state that paradise will be here on earth.

argument: how come no one has seen god, not even jesus?

starScream

class avenger,

I do not fully (or partially, lol) understand the Trinity because I have never taken a study on it at church.

I doubt that is going to help you much. most clergy just call it a mystery when they can't answer your questions.

here, you can read my dialogue with a guy about the trinity here: http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/12/53346/1.ashx

we get into the knitty gritty.

if you want further explaination i have given the subject much study and am fully confident that i can handle your questions.

44

Doubting the Trinity and Paradise

by ClassAvenger in

i don't doubt the trinity, but again i had a talk with one of my jw friends and he gave me several bible passages which he wants me to explain, most deal with the trinity, and others deal with the belief in heaven.

he says that they show that jesus was less than his father, and was a separate person, and the others state that paradise will be here on earth.

argument: how come no one has seen god, not even jesus?

starScream

BTW

about colosians 1:15.

I have recently given much thought to the matter. I see two main ways of explaining that scripture.

1. The JWs say it is calling Jesus the first thing God created because calls him the first born. Of course, that can't be what it is saying because then everthing created would be born and creation is from nothing. So firstborn is actually saying pre-eminent one as we already established.

2. The deity defenders say that it is saying he is the pre-eminent one or Lord of creation. Which I admit is a possibility.

3. I am seeing a third possibility and I think it is the more correct one. The "of creation" part is the key. The deity attackers contend it is still calling him part of the creation. The deity defenders resist this because to them it would contradict his deity.

Here is how I see it. The deity defenders are right on the pre-eminent one part. The deity attackers are sort of right about the of creation part. It is why they are right about the of creation part that both sides don't realize. It is only confirming his humanity as his becoming part of the creation. He is the pre-eminent one within the creation now that he has conquered death and is the anointed king by God.

I think that is the most likely although 2 is possible but 1 is no way.

So it still does not deny that he is deity, it confirms his humanity yet again. He is of all humans, the pre-eminent one. He is the human lord destined to reign over all.

44

Doubting the Trinity and Paradise

by ClassAvenger in

i don't doubt the trinity, but again i had a talk with one of my jw friends and he gave me several bible passages which he wants me to explain, most deal with the trinity, and others deal with the belief in heaven.

he says that they show that jesus was less than his father, and was a separate person, and the others state that paradise will be here on earth.

argument: how come no one has seen god, not even jesus?

starScream

Class Avenger,

You JW friend is misrepresenting the trinity and it seems you perhaps don't understand it.

He says that they show that Jesus was less than his Father, and was a separate person,

The Trinity teaches that Jesus is a separate person than the Father. You may not realize that.There are scriptures that show subordination of the Son to the Father. The Son is still shown to be equal to the Father.

- Matthew 24:36: But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only. My comment: He said that how come Jesus was sent by God, how could God send God?

Simple. Paul explains how Jesus' humanity took precedence before his resurrection in phil 2:6-8. He explains that even though in his very existence he is in the form of God he subjected himself to that form of a servant even subjecting himself to death on a cross. He did not use his divine power ever. He only performed miracles by the power of the Holy Spirit. At the time he made that statement he did not know.

- John 17:3: And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou has sent. My comment: He said that how come Jesus was sent by God, how could God send God?

I like said. Jesus is not the Father. Such scriptures refute oneness theology which states Jesus is the Father. They do not refute the trinity, they actually SUPPORT it.

- Colossians 1:15: Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: Argument: How come Jesus was firstborn of every creature, that means that he is not eternal.

this chapter explains that Jesus is God and the creator of All that is created. first-born simply means he is the pre-eminent one. Creation was not born it was created. First-born in the bible usually isn't talking an order in which they came forth it simply establishes one who is favored. This is a confirmation of his deity not a denial.

- John 1:18: No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him. Argument: How come no one has seen God, not even Jesus?

There are many statements in this scripture that seem contradictory unless properly applied. They don't only seem to contradict the deity of christ but many passages in the bible. It is actually not a contradiction of either but further revelation of what people have seen when they have seen God and confirmation of the trinity. This scripture is saying that Jesus has explained the Father. No one (man) has seen the very being of God or what God is. When they have seen God it has been a manifestation of the Son. People have seen God in the bible and what they have seen is a manifestation of the Son who is God. The important thing to take from this passage is the reference to the Unity of the Father and the Son. That is what the trinity teaches. 'in the bosom of the Father.' That establishes biblical unity.

- Matthew 3:17: And lo a voice from heaven saying: This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. Argument: How could God be talking to God?

You need to realize that the trinity does not teach that Jesus is the Father. The Father talks to his Son. This scripture once again refutes oneness theology and confirms trinitarian theology.

- 1 John 2:23: Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: (but) he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also. Argument: Why are they shown as two separate entities?

Once again confirmation of the trinity and refutation of oneness. Jesus is a different person than the Father.

Argument: How come Jesus is saying that no one can come to the Father, but by him, if they are two separate persons.

huh?

- II Corinthians 1:3: Blessed be God, even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of mercies, and the God of all comfort; Argument: Explain how God is Father of everything, including Jesus.

I dont get your point. Jesus is the Son of God. You should know that.

Argument: How come Jesus is asking God for it to be his Father's will, and not his, if Jesus is God?

The fact that Jesus is sweating blood should be a clue that he isnt thrilled about suffering a crucifixtion.

- Psalms 37:11: But the meek shall inherit the earth: and shall delight themselves in the abundance of peace. Argument: How come we believe in heaven if the bible says that the meek will inherit the earth?

Jesus taught in going to heaven as did the apostles. Revelation taught that heaven ultimately comes down to earth. Jesus said Abraham Isaac and Jacob would be in heaven. It is not that hard to figure out.

43

Fully Gifted Creation, No God of Gaps

by D wiltshire in

im leaning more and more towards a fully gifted creation.

i think god is so wise that when he first began "this" universe that he endowed it with tremendous organization potentiality, that would not require him to step in and guide it or help it along to produce intelligent life.. look at how scientist tell us all the elements are made in the stars, though nuclear fusion suns not only give us light and heat but also produce more complicated elements.

physicists tell us of wonderful self organization on the atomic and subatomic level.

starScream

D wiltshire,

Look at how scientist tell us all the elements are made in the stars, though nuclear fusion suns not only give us light and heat but also produce more complicated elements.

Their conlusions on that subject are based on scientific evidence and are quite provable. We even have particle accerlators on earth that can produce some elements.

Physicists tell us of wonderful self organization on the atomic and subatomic level.

and that self organization is so broad based and easy in molecular chemistry that it does not naturally or randomly produce what is so specifically necessary for life. All human intervention has been completely unsuccessful in helping this "fully gifted creation" produce life through the natural processes required.

19

not sure what I think about this--yet.........

by Ravyn in

.

http://www.beliefnet.com/story/127/story_12772.html

ravyn.

starScream

.

Sounds good though.

See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception , according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ. col 2:8

2 thes 2: 9-10 the one whose coming is in accord with the activity of Satan, with all power and signs and false wonders, and with all the deception of wickedness for those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth so as to be saved.

19

not sure what I think about this--yet.........

by Ravyn in

.

http://www.beliefnet.com/story/127/story_12772.html

ravyn.

starScream

Jesus -- "I am going away, and you will look for me, and you will die in your sin. Where I go you CANNOT come." john 8:21

Jesus -- "I told you that you would die in your sins; if you do not believe I am, you will indeed die in your sins." john 8:24

Bishop Carlton Pearson -- "We've created this monster called the devil that lords it over this torture chamber. None of that is scriptural if you really look at the Bible."

Jesus -- "Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels." matt 25:41

Bishop Carlton Pearson -- "In the totality of [God's] vastness, there is evil."

Seraphims -- "Holy, Holy, Holy is the LORD of Hosts." Isa 6:3

Bishop Carlton Pearson --"[God is] so inclusive, it's hard to believe. He put the versions of himself back together in Christ. There's a version of God that's Hindu. There's a version of God that's Jewish, Muslim, Christian, Baha'i. It's so beautiful."

God -- "Exd 20:5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God [am] a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth [generation] of them that hate me; ."

God -- "Exd 34:14 For thou shalt worship no other god: for the LORD, whose name [is] Jealous, [is] a jealous God:"

God -- "Deu 6:15 (For the LORD thy God [is] a jealous God among you) lest the anger of the LORD thy God be kindled against thee, and destroy thee from off the face of the earth."

God -- "And I will surely hide my face in that day for all the evils which they shall have wrought, in that they are turned unto other gods." Deu 31:18

In conclusion:

Bishop Cartlton Pearson is best described by Jude.

These are the men who are hidden reefs in your love feasts when they feast with you without fear, caring for themselves; clouds without water, carried along by winds; autumn trees without fruit, doubly dead, uprooted; Jude 12

wild waves of the sea, casting up their own shame like foam; wandering stars, for whom the black darkness has been reserved forever. Jude 13

It was also about these men that Enoch, in the seventh generation from Adam, prophesied, saying, Behold, the Lord came with many thousands of His holy ones, Jude 14

execute judgment upon all, and to convict all the ungodly of all their ungodly deeds which they have done in an ungodly way, and of all the harsh things which ungodly sinners have spoken against Him. Jude 15

These are grumblers, finding fault, following after their own lusts; they speak arrogantly, flattering people for the sake of gaining an advantage. Jude 16.

72

Sex in the New Book "Learn from the Great Teacher"

by AlanF in

i just obtained a copy of one of the new releases from the summer jw district conventions, learn from the great teacher.

this book is oriented towards children, and frankly, is a stereotypical piece of propaganda from the "faithful and discreet slave".

in some ways the book is incredibly revealing, since it has to break down a number of ridiculous jw teachings into a form that even jw children can swallow, and when those teachings are put into simplest form their ridiculousness is evident to everyone but small children and stereotypically braindead jws.

starScream

Neonmadman,

So, since premarital sex is not sinful, she’s being stoned solely for lying (fraud). How inconsistent of God to frame His laws in such a way.

A virgin having sex to one man while married to another is specifically called a sin and requires the death sentence. I have not said she dies for fraud, you said she dies for lying and premarital sex. You yourself admit neither is punishable by death.

The same reason that the girl would be stoned for not being a virgin. Because premarital sex is also sinful!

Now you contradict yourself. You say premarital sex is not punishable by death but you say it is punishable by death.

Then prove it. You certainly haven’t done so yet.

What are you denying? Are you saying that a virgin woman engaged to one man and having sex with another is not punishable by death?

Then you’d better restate your position, because I thought the whole thrust of this discussion was that premarital sex was not a sin

If premarital sex happens where the bible prohibits it is most certainly is a sin. If a virgin woman is engaged to one man and has sex with another that is sinful premarital sex. The bible says so. There are many specific ways premarital sex is sinful. You made it sound as though I was excluding them in what you said.

and therefore could not be included in the prohibition of porneia for Christians

Those specific types of premarital sex that are called sin are most definately included in that definition.

You assume it “must have” happened that way because it fits your particular idea. But the bottom line is, you made it all up – it is not in the Bible!

What is not in the bible is someone being stoned to death just for premarital sex. In this relationship there is one precedent. That which I mentioned and it is perfectly plausible. The scenario you came up with:

The only solution that I can think of that makes sense to me is that it is the combining of premarital sex with fraud against one’s intended mate (and thus breach of what should be a lifelong trust) that makes the crime so heinous.

: has no biblical precedent and is pure speculation. Mine came directly from the Law code (deut. 22:23-24)

But the bottom line is, you made it all up – it is not in the Bible!

deut 22:23-24, where is your scenario in the bible?

To use the old JW analogy, why does the Bible not tell us specifically that it is a sin to dump our garbage into our neighbor’s back yard? You have made yet another assumption – that an act cannot be sinful unless the Bible spells out its sinfulness in the most specific of terms. There are many truths that must be gleaned from the study of Bible principles.

You are still not dealing with the strangeness of specifically calling so many esoteric things sins but not the one that is considered the most common.

If we just read the Bible without preconceived notions, what do we find?

We find that premarital sex is a sin under a number of conditions.

But you’ve given birth to an “idea baby,” as I heard one preacher call it. And suddenly, you’re reading the entire Bible in the light of that idea, and molding every text to make it fit.

No. The "idea baby" is that premarital sex is a sin. I dont need to change the bible to eliminate the law forbidding premarital sex. The law is not there.

This is what scholars call eisegesis, and it is not the correct way to approach the Bible.

I agree. You should really dump the "idea baby" you have created that premarital itself is a sin.

It is reading ideas into the text and seeking support for them.

Kind of like trying to prove premarital sex itself is a sin when the bible just never says it.

Its opposite is exegesis, the art and science of extracting the meaning that is already in the text.

Such as the numerous sexual sins mentioned in the bible, some that are very esoteric indeed.

And that is what we should strive for – extracting what is there, not imposing our own ideas upon the text.

Thank you for stating my position so articulately. You have saved me a lot of time.

Are you suggesting that young people in ancient times didn’t have raging hormones?

Not at all. My point is that they had no law on the books to universally supress these raging hormones as you call them. Today, we(you) pull out scriptures that talk about "porneia"(remember controversey) in order to do it. They did not have that back then. They had no law on the books telling them they couldn't do it.

What opinions? We’re not talking about opinions; we’re talking about God’s Law to Israel. The Law placed a high value on virginity of a bride. If premarital sex was not sinful, it should make no difference whatever whether she was or wasn’t a virgin.

I told you. Your entire assertion in this area was speculation and I could only address it with speculation. You were not talking about God's Laws to Israel. If you are, state what law.

Marriage was not merely a commercial transaction, even though some exchange of value may have been customary.

No. The transaction value was law. Deal with it.

Why? Why pay more for a virgin?

I already demonstrated the male obsession that exists in some places with virgin women.

75

New World Translation Errors

by ClassAvenger in

hi guys, im on a time budget here.

a jw friend of mine is trying to prove that i have a wrong, twisted bible full of errors and added scriptures.

i have a king james bible, and he has the nwt of course.

starScream

the NWT is amazingly deceptive and twisted. It could take years to fully grasp all the doctrimally motivated alterations.

It could be years before the WTS is done tampering with the textus receptus so that it will fit their theology.