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

by Terry 139 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • JosephMalik
    JosephMalik

    Terry,

    There were some really good comments in this thread but they were dismissed as silly. This was largely based on the rules you made up in the first place which did not get challenged effectively. The thing common to this discussion was "life" not intelligence, your view of justice or even identity but life. It is this life that is at stake and it will be this life that will be redeemed. It goes something like this:

    Genesis 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. {of the dust…: Heb. dust of the ground}

    Genesis 6:17And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall die.

    John 1:4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.

    This is how we came to be. Now along with such life we can have, identity, personality, and the rest. This is important to us, but this is not what God valued the most. It was this life itself, given in the beginning, the very same life we all have today, the very life He will restore to those He chooses that mattered. But you said: Children are the result of birth! You are imputing life to non-existent non-entities. And further: Imputing identity to unformed spermatazoa not even united with eggs which were not yet in ovaries yet to come is beyond whimsical and ignorant---it is pathological nonsense.

    Nonsense to you perhaps, but not to God. That life, capable of propagation, capable of sustaining living beings is what really mattered. Without it we are just dust. That life is now found in us, in our blood for example and such blood does not think does it? Yet it counts with God beyond any identity or being that may be attached to it.

    Genesis 9:4 But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat.

    Genesis 9:5 And surely your blood of your lives will I require; at the hand of every beast will I require it, and at the hand of man; at the hand of every man’s brother will I require the life of man.

    John 6:54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.

    So the question is: How do you INHERIT a paid-for debt?

    The answer is the debt was not paid for. Adam the sinner could not redeem such life simply because he died. We cannot redeem ourselves simply because we die. That same life still condemned continued along with those that possess it. The possessors of it die, yes, that much is true. But the giver of that very life had to sacrifice that same life faithfully in order to make it possible for that life to be redeemed by the same blood that is common to us all. It did not matter when in time this took place. It only mattered that it did take place to make it possible for us to gain not just life, but eternal life during this last day.

    Revelation 5:9 And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation;

    Joseph

  • RAF
    RAF

    All this (imaged) story is not about debs but symbolically about the consequences of everybodies free will

  • RAF
    RAF

    Now check the last sentence of this post

    from Prophecor : http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/6/139629/2495534/post.ashx#2495534

  • Awakened07
    Awakened07

    First I'd like to thank Terry for his replies, although a bit harsh at times, they are pretty much what I would have answered. A few years ago, I would have agreed with the "spiritual crowd", however.

    As for this:

    Missing link. There were other humans or hominids already here on earth when God placed Adam in the garden of Eden (also a metaphor). Adam was different in that he was more spiritual with a soul (God breathed into his nostrils the breath of life and man came to be a living soul). He was created in the likeness of his Father. There was none found among all that God created suitable as a mate for Adam. God provided a woman in the image of Adam for a help mate.

    Eve partook of something forbidden and contaminated the pure blood and Adam followed suit. Based on God's just recompense law, he would have covered their mouths rather than their genitals had the "sin" been just disobeying a command not to eat of a certain fruit tree.

    She introduced into the DNA --- the blood line --- the gene pool --- however you want to say it, a contamination that introduced death like the animals and hominids.

    This is just another hypothesis that makes SOME sense. The "death gene" is in the BLOOD because of going outside God's mandate to procreate with one's own kind.

    So basically what you're saying is Eve's sin was to have sex with other hominids? Did she then go to Adam and say "Hey, Adam - you won't believe how great it is to have sex with those man-animals - they may be stupid, but woooah! You should really try it.". And so Adam had sex with them too? 'Cause that's where the story would go, isn't it, based on the 'metaphor' of the forbidden fruit, which Eve ate first, then gave to Adam?

    In that case, why the forbidden fruit metaphor at all?

    Was it because people of that time (when Genesis was written) wouldn't be able to handle the X-rated material? And yet, the Bible has no problem telling the story of God's sons looking upon the daughters of mankind and lusting for them, and coming down to have sex with them (must have had sex since it resulted in offspring). So if the Bible can have that story just a few paragraphs later - why couldn't there have been a verse in Genesis 3, saying something like this: "And there were other, humanlike animals in those days, that God had created. And Eve looked upon them, and lo, they were much more masculine and muscular than Adam, and she felt a longing in her nether regions. And so it came to be that she came to know one of them. And she later said unto Adam - you should find one of their females to get to know as well." Why make up a story about a tree with fruit?

    (If I sound snotty and arrogant in this reply, that's not my intention - I know it can seem that way; I just want it answered)

  • Blueblades
    Blueblades

    For me this question is moot, because this question has been resolved. For me this discussion is based on the belief that what is written in Genesis has actually happened some six thousand years ago. Some believe this and some don't believe this. I for one don't believe that the stories written in the bible are explanations from God, Jehovah, Creator etc. The bible itself is a historical book written by men and has been misquoted and mistranslated down through the years.

    Terry you already know this. Your question on the subject of divine justice is hypothetical and that's why I conclude that your question is moot.

    Alanf wrote a beautiful essay on The Ransom..Divine Justice. and demonstrated that there is no need for a ransom. If anyone who responded to this topic has not read that article you should as it gives an answer to Terry's question.

    I can't link it here: Go to members Alanf and do a search. If anyone can find it, please post it here.

    Terry, I'm not trying to hijack your topic just adding to it. You have answered many who have responded and showed were they have erred in their responses. Have you read Alanf's response to these type of questions?

    Blueblades

  • wednesday
    wednesday

    I think there may be a sort of karma in place . . On more than one occassion someone had been bullying me, verbally and otherwise, only to find themself walking into a door or wall, etc. I can't explain why this happens but I have seen it many times.

  • Terry
    Terry
    Terry, the concept of "justice" is notoriously subjective and abstract.

    Justice cannot be subjective in the practical sense. It can only be made to appear abstract by failing to define it.

    Even the smallest child has a clear sense of what is "fair" and not fair.

    You can't live in any city, state or nation without quickly discovering that JUSTICE is a matter of clearly defined parameters. Law is written for a reason.

    You cannot appear before a magistrate, judge, justice of the peace or court official and say to them:

    "Well, Your Honor, that's YOUR subjective opinion, but; I have my own!"

    Philosophically I don't know how anybody can function rationally when they don't bother to come to terms with the basic building blocks of society such as ethics, justice, freedom, etc.

    Language is the first barrier.

    The language of JUSTICE has been deliberately made obscure so that lawyers will have a living. That I'll grant you.

  • Terry
    Terry
    The rest is metaphor, imagination, construct, synthesis and hypothetical fiction.
    Are you saying that these things are unimportant? If so, why so?

    To think rationally it is necessary to have before you an array of tools.

    If you wish to build a table, for example, you need tools.

    What if you didn't know what tools you needed, where they were located or how to use them--but; you did know what a table was supposed to look like??

    What would you do? Most people would ask somebody else to build the table for them!

    We can't do that with our THINKING or somebody else ends up THINKING FOR US and we just have to accept it without a fight.

    To build an argument you need tools.

    One of the most important tools is an understanding of Concepts and Definitions, logical fallacies, and how premises lead to conclusions.

    Your rational mind is your first and last line of defense against hijacking.

    As Jehovah's Witnesess we once experienced what it is like to have our mind hijacked and carried off by burglars of the mind!!

    I, for one, promised myself I would never let that happen again. I now have burglar alarms.

    My alarm goes off when people start talking about a subject without defining their words.

    Further, failing to ascertain whether a concept is fanciful or concrete is a sure sign of trouble.

  • John Doe
    John Doe
    Justice cannot be subjective in the practical sense. It can only be made to appear abstract by failing to define it.

    Since when does defining something mean the definition is not subjective? Once again, I propose that if justice were as objective as you seem to think, there would be no discussion about what justice is--it would be a self established fact. That justice is a self established fact, I think we can agree, is not the case.

  • Terry
    Terry
    Just to clear something up that you mis-read:
    recessive or dominant

    So, there was no Beethoven?

    There is no genius at all?

    There is no talent that suddenly appears in a family line and surpasses the surrounding family traits?

    It was in his genes.

    He was a GENE-yus?

    What, exactly are you saying is in a genius' genes? A genius gene?

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit