IS IT FAIR TO PAY THE SAME DEBT TWICE?? Divine Justice...

by Terry 139 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

Terry

Terry,
Wrong again. At least you are consistent. My friendly neighborhood doctor told me that he cannot create life. Your definitions are wrong. And I simply leave the rest for others to see. It is not necessary to refute every argument or enlighten every person. The reasoing goes like this: Luke 9:60 Jesus said unto him, Let the dead bury their dead: but go thou and preach the kingdom of God.
Joseph
I am guessing you were once an active JW. Am I right?
When you were knocking on doors and bringing the "good news" to the householders you simply knew you were preaching the Truth, right?
Is what you are saying to me the same Truth or a different Truth than back then at the door holding a Watchtower magazine?
The reason I ask is that being "right" and being "wrong" can feel like the same thing depending on where you are on the calendar.
Are you just as convinced now as you were back then?
kid-A

"Wrong again. At least you are consistent. My friendly neighborhood doctor told me that he cannot create life."
> And what is the point of this comment, Joseph? If you took the time to get educated in organic chemistry, astrophysics and evolutionary molecular biology as many of us have done, you would perhaps understand that the necessary preconditions for the establishment of rudimentary organic lifeforms can and did occur in the primordial liquid conditions that existed on this planet, billions of years ago. Instead, like a standard JW drone, you prefer to accept the scientific "knowledge" of ignorant goat-herders who decided to write down their silly myths and fables whilst wandering through the desert 2000 years ago. In any case, you cannot even prove the existence of your "god" let alone describe how such an imaginary being somehow decided one day to brew up a male and female homo sapien in his magical cauldron and place them in his little "garden of eden" amusement park.
It betrays your fundamental misunderstanding of how scientific knowledge and theories are promulgated and tested by your implication that because a scientist cannot create lifeform in a petri dish, ergo the evolutionary origins of life on this planet must somehow be false....and it is simply pathetic that your "default" belief structure would be the absurdist nonsense contained in the old testament (i.e. "The Goat Herders Guide to the Universe")....
"Your definitions are wrong. And I simply leave the rest for others to see."
> No, actually his definitions are spot on. It is yours that are completely wrong....see above. Indeed, you have provided no "definitions" because you appear to base your "knowledge" on the wisdom of primeval dimwits who wrote their "holy book" in the context of complete and utter scientific ignorance. You are very talented at regurgitating silly little biblical scriptures in a futile attempt to prove your point, but honestly Mr. Malik, dont you think a board populated by ex-JWs can see right through this little "elders" trick? Bible quotes have about as much significance to many of us as the garbage printed in the CrapTower and Asleep.....
"It is not necessary to refute every argument or enlighten every person. The reasoing goes like this: Luke 9:60 Jesus said unto him, Let the dead bury their dead: but go thou and preach the kingdom of God."
> No, Mr. Malik, it is necessary to refute the nonsense of the bible and particularly those who claim that it has any scientific, moral or other validity besides its significance as a literary curiosity and/or a psychological template for the establishment of cult-like thinking. This quote from Luke, is this supposed to represent an "argument" or even a valid "point"? If so, please enlighten us because I fail to see that it has any significance beyond some cynical call to arms to the "faithful" advocates of stultified, stale proselytizing. Indeed, you are a strange bird, Mr. Malik.
the dreamer dreaming

first off, Adam was not born immortal, he did not die because he ate of the tree, read the story, God lied, he never promised Adam immortality and he did not take away from Adam anything, what he did was prevent Adam from ARTIFICIALLY EXTENDING HIS LIFE.
note that AFTER eating from the tree, Adam was still able to eat of the tree of life and live forever, but that would prove God lied, so God prevented this... but it had nothing to do with physically altering Adam or any of his Children... Adam died of OLD AGE, not because of sin.
the gift of eternal life is just that.. the possibility of being granted EXTENDED life... we do not die because we sin or Adam sinned, we Die because we were made mortal to begin with and no one is EXTENDING our life.
the whole concept of original sin is a lie created by the church.
eclipse

first off, Adam was not born immortal, he did not die because he ate of the tree, read the story, God lied, he never promised Adam immortality and he did not take away from Adam anything, what he did was prevent Adam from ARTIFICIALLY EXTENDING HIS LIFE.
note that AFTER eating from the tree, Adam was still able to eat of the tree of life and live forever, but that would prove God lied, so God prevented this... but it had nothing to do with physically altering Adam or any of his Children... Adam died of OLD AGE, not because of sin.
the gift of eternal life is just that.. the possibility of being granted EXTENDED life... we do not die because we sin or Adam sinned, we Die because we were made mortal to begin with and no one is EXTENDING our life.
the whole concept of original sin is a lie created by the church.
So well said. Exactly.
truthseeker

Adam had a perfect body, one that was capable of renewing itself, however, this was not immortality. The tree of life was there for a reason. Who defines what is perfect outside the body? How do we know that all/some of Adam's decisions were perfect? Eve was created physically perfect. Eve sinned by eating the forbidden fruit. Adam sinned by eating what his wife gave him. It could have been the same fruit or Adam could have picked some of his own. Both man and woman sinned. They died within the day of their eating it, or within 1,000 years. The wages of sin is death, they both paid the price. Just as Jehovah protected Jesus Christ in the womb of Mary, he could have done the same thing for Cain, Abel and so on. Later on, God wrote in the Mosaic Law that "children should not be put to death on account of their PARENTS", yet Paul wrote that "through ONE MAN sin entered into the world and death through sin." We were born into an unfair world. First of all, we are set up to fail 1) We were born physically and mentally imperfect 2) We are surrounded by invisible wicked spirits who have no business on this planet 3) We are faced with continual tests to determine whether we ultimately live or die In spite of all this, we just have to live life the best we can. We can't change the past.
JosephMalik

I am guessing you were once an active JW. Am I right?
When you were knocking on doors and bringing the "good news" to the householders you simply knew you were preaching the Truth, right?
Terry,
Wrong. I always had doubts but I knew that the apostles did not always see eye to eye. Where then was the line? What did it take to "have the truth" as the saying goes. I lost discussions at the door and took time to resolve them. They turned out to be wrong but error defeating error was not a good thing and kept me in the dark. They were smart people but wrong. I debated with Bowman and others. Walter Martin called for a discussion. He was wrong and I refuted him. Reminds me of this thread. This helped but I still wondered and studied. I asked questions and finally wrote the book. The WT did not have the truth. They had more error than truth and much of it was destructive. They were on the wrong side like the others. You do not see me at such doors anymore.
Terry said: Is what you are saying to me the same Truth or a different Truth than back then at the door holding a Watchtower magazine?
The truth never changed. It simply took me some time to catch on. Now I know that all that was expected of anyone to gain Paradise was simply to be a decent human being. To gain the Kingdom takes a little more. And doctrine does matter to achieve this higher calling. Can we still have something wrong. Perhaps but not the very visible errors that most are making now. When pointed out they should always be corrected. Like finding a jem of greater quality than what you already have. That is the road we should take.
Terry said: The reason I ask is that being "right" and being "wrong" can feel like the same thing depending on where you are on the calendar.
Yes it can. It may hurt but I am glad when an error is brought to my attention. I correct my work and keep it updated.
Terry said: Are you just as convinced now as you were back then?
Back then I was coming out of Catholicism and was really in the dark. The WT kept me in the dark. Yes, I am convinced but based on what I have seen and learned myself. And I expect nothing of anyone other than human decency. If they offer good biblical information and/or support the Faith even better.
Joseph
Awakened07

first off, Adam was not born immortal, he did not die because he ate of the tree, read the story, God lied, he never promised Adam immortality and he did not take away from Adam anything, what he did was prevent Adam from ARTIFICIALLY EXTENDING HIS LIFE.
note that AFTER eating from the tree, Adam was still able to eat of the tree of life and live forever, but that would prove God lied, so God prevented this... but it had nothing to do with physically altering Adam or any of his Children... Adam died of OLD AGE, not because of sin.
the gift of eternal life is just that.. the possibility of being granted EXTENDED life... we do not die because we sin or Adam sinned, we Die because we were made mortal to begin with and no one is EXTENDING our life.
the whole concept of original sin is a lie created by the church.
This is a good reply, and it answers what the heck the 'Tree of Life' was doing in the Garden in the first place, something I've always wondered about. But what was the point of God saying 'You will surely die if you eat of that fruit' , if they died of old age anyway when they did, and that if they hadn't eaten of it, they would also have died of old age? Wouldn't it be better if he had said "If you eat of that tree, I will not grant you eternal life"? But then they were actually never told not to eat the fruit from the Tree of Life. They were told they could eat from any tree in the Garden, except that of Knowledge of good and evil. So they could basically have eaten the fruit of the Tree of Life all the time, up until they ate from that 'other' tree.
I always found it 'funny' how they could go eat of the Tree of Life after they had sinned, and that God had to physically throw them out of the Garden to prevent this from happening. What properties did this Tree of Life have? The tree is not described much, except to say that it was planted, and then later that God had to throw Adam & Eve out to prevent them from eating its fruit. God never told them "If you eat of the Tree of Life, this-and-this will happen" like He did with the tree of Knowledge. So what was this thing? Magical fruit? God could not deny them eternal life if they ate of this fruit? He would be unable to?? So He had to hinder them from eating from it? What was the point in having a tree with fruit that would give eternal life? Couldn't God simply grant them eternal life when that was appropriate? I never got that. In the context of the whole thing being a parable, an illustration, etc. yes, but not as in what actually happened to the first human beings.
Terry

I always found it 'funny' how they could go eat of the Tree of Life after they had sinned, and that God had to physically throw them out of the Garden to prevent this from happening. What properties did this Tree of Life have? The tree is not described much, except to say that it was planted, and then later that God had to throw Adam & Eve out to prevent them from eating its fruit. God never told them "If you eat of the Tree of Life, this-and-this will happen" like He did with the tree of Knowledge. So what was this thing? Magical fruit? God could not deny them eternal life if they ate of this fruit? He would be unable to?? So He had to hinder them from eating from it? What was the point in having a tree with fruit that would give eternal life?
I had an epiphany one day thinking about all the above.
In ancient times God was very anthropomorphic. He walked in the Garden "in the breezy part of the day".
He talked to man. He was suprised by events. He asked questions as though he needed information.
It was all kind of like a High School performance.
God has conversations with his heavenly fellows too which we are privvy to in Genesis. I guess Moses had terrific hearing!
As we go from man's first very PERSONable encounters with a physical God and come through the years, we find God is fading, fading, fading.
It hit me that as man became more sophisticated and less childlike and naive the stories about God had to be a bit more palatable. The High School Play had to become more off-Broadway.
When we get to Israel in Egypt and Moses leading the Jews through the Red Seas it is like a performance of Phantom of the Opera or Cats!
But, God fades..fades..fades...
By the time of Malachi, God is an offstage voice. And then...silence.
The success of Alexander the Great brought Greek drama and science and logic to the Jews and they couldn't handle the ancient fables anymore without a grain of salt.
I remember the day I thought about this. It became clear to me that children can accept alot of details in their bedtime stories which an adult would laugh at.
The Disappearance of God is a function of the gradual sophistication of man's intellect.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_n24_v47/ai_17955358
the dreamer dreaming

there is at least one book out there that shows that genesis was meant to be living parable for the ten commandments, each story in turn showing the consequences of violating them in order... never read the book through, but you can sort of feel the validity of it by examining the major stories and their consequences.
adam and eve having other god[s] before them -themselves and the serpent?
people disrespecting the name of God prior to the flood
the adulteration of the human species by angelic invaders
etc
Terry

there is at least one book out there that shows that genesis was meant to be living parable for the ten commandments, each story in turn showing the consequences of violating them in order... never read the book through, but you can sort of feel the validity of it by examining the major stories and their consequences.
adam and eve having other god[s] before them -themselves and the serpent?
people disrespecting the name of God prior to the flood
the adulteration of the human species by angelic invaders
etc
Talking animals.
Invisible persons.
Superpowers.
Hero and villain.
MYTH!

IS IT FAIR TO PAY THE SAME DEBT TWICE?? Divine Justice...

Share this