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

by InterestedOne 64 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • Perry


    A cult is a maladaptive relationship with someone or something in the place of God. The Jewish faith you that constantly promote (before certain factions descent into mysticism) was shown by Jesus to be such a cult - a maladaptive relationship with the rules of God instead of with God himself. For when he appeared, they recognised him not.

    All religious associations that claim salvation with them (along side Jesus of course) are also cults. The office of Savior is a solitary position.

    New Testament Christianity does not qualify as a cult because the object of Savior is none other than God himself, manifest in the flesh.

    Or, Jesus was the biggest liar and charlatan who ever lived. There is no middle ground here.

  • designs


    You wouldn't know Judaism if a Rabbi walked up and kissed you on the forehead, but you can learn.

    Christianity most certainly qualifiies as a Cult, and a very nasty one at that- see there History.

    The 'Jesus' of the NT is a manipulative psycho. Now that doesn't mean the real Jesus or Yeshua ben Yoseph was a psycho, probably a very good practicing Jew of the Essene sect, a pacifist who cared for people. The NT is a fictionalized version of someone by that name.

    I am not promoting the Jewish Faith I am pointing out the errors and omissions made in the NT about the Jewish Faith. Whoever wrote the edited version we now have were manipulative liars.

  • dgp

    Perry, YES, I'M AN ANARCHIST, or, if you want, a LIBERTARIAN, but not for the reasons you pointed out. I don't take offense from what you post here because this is the first time a religious person throws mud at me and I'M LOVING IT.

    Mikhail Bakunin, for example, wrote this:

    The liberty of man consists solely in this, that he obeys the laws of nature because he has himself recognized them as such, and not because they have been imposed upon him externally by any foreign will whatsoever, human or divine, collective or individual.

    YEAH. This is so right. Doing good just for the sake of it, not because it will earn you salvation? How does that sound? Foreign?

    This is an English translation of one very famous sonnet in the Spanish world. When I first learned of this, I kept a copy, and it's been with me ever since, though I am no longer a Catholic.

    I am not moved to love you, Lord,
    By promises of paradise;
    Nor does the hell that terrifies
    Move me to want to sin no more.
    You are the one that moves me, Lord,
    When to your cross I turn my eyes
    To see your wounds, hear insults, lies;
    I'm grieved to know you're dying, Lord.
    Your love moves me in such a way
    That without heav'n I'd love you still,
    And without hell, I'd fear to stray.
    I need no goads or giveaway;
    For even if my hopes were nil,
    I'd love you as I do today.

    Now, just as Barry Manilow sang for someone, GOVERNING BODY, THIS ONE'S FOR YOU:

    They [the Marxists] maintain that only a dictatorship—their dictatorship, of course—can create the will of the people, while our answer to this is: No dictatorship can have any other aim but that of self-perpetuation, and it can beget only slavery in the people tolerating it; freedom can be created only by freedom, that is, by a universal rebellion on the part of the people and free organization of the toiling masses from the bottom up.

    (Bakunin again).

    In Search of Christian Freedom, page 16. Ray Franz quotes Benjamin Hoadley:

    Authority is the greatest and most irreconcilable enemy to truth and argument that this world ever furnished. All the sophistry - all the color of plausibility - the artifice and cunning of the subtlest disputer in the world may be laid open and turned to the advantage of that very truth which they are designed to hide; but against authority there is no defence.

    Enough quotes. YEAH, I'M AN ANARCHIST, in the sense that I don't believe in authority for the sake of authority alone. Not even God's. By the way, with respect to God, I have yet another quote:

    Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

    (Lord Acton)

    Happy New Year, everyone!

  • tec
    The 'Jesus' of the NT is a manipulative psycho. Now that doesn't mean the real Jesus or Yeshua ben Yoseph was a psycho, probably a very good practicing Jew of the Essene sect, a pacifist who cared for people.

    Love your enemies.

    Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

    Love God and love one another are the most important commandments.

    Mercy over sacrifice.

    Forgive everyone, as often as they ask or need you to.

    Bless your enemies.

    Give to those who ask of you.

    Give to the poor, feed the hungry, care for the widows and orphans.

    The least among you will be the greatest - you lead by serving.

    God sent his son, not to condemn the world, but to save it.

    He laid down his life for his friends.

    He denounced hypocrisy where he saw it, and taught what should be done instead - through word and example. (Those I love, I rebuke... remember?)

    Now I get that the above is not what you're taking issue with, (although you dismiss Christ because he didn't give credit to the sages, even though He was around before those sages had ever been born... and even if you don't believe that, then certainly God was around beforehand. So it wasn't as if the Sages came up with it on their own either. And Christ did say that he did only as His Father had taught him. Designs, wouldn't the sages have rather seen the glory go to God than themselves?)

    Your second issue is with hell, right? So lets talk about the 'unquenchable fire'. First, it could be judgment, it could be refining, even during life (and the jews you have been speaking for, since not all factions believe the same, do believe in a sort of purgatory/refining period after death, depending on how bad they were during life), and it could also be annihilation. Even at its worst, it is the 'fire' that is unquenchable. Eternal. Not the person (or the chaff) being thrown into it.

    So compare what man has made of this doctrine and how we might still be influenced by their interpretations, to the rest of Christ's example. Consider also the story about the adulterous woman about to be stoned. After none cast the first stone, (since none of them had the right to), neither did Christ condemn her... even though He was the only one with the authority to do so.


  • bohm

    Perry: when YOU say the only way to know if God is omni-benevolent is to be omni-benevolent yourself thats plainly false because you DO claim to know that he is. So the real statement must be:

    "the only way to know if God is omni-benevolent is to be omni-benevolent yourself OR if God tells us himself through holy spirit", right?

    so if a Muslim feel God talk to him, then he can claim with full certainty allah is omni-benevolent because Allah, then, fit your criteria of evidence for omni-benevolence?

  • designs


    I hope your New year is starting off well. You bring up the right challenges. Here is something to consider, a way to rephrase and address the issue. What if I said to you 'Tammy, 2+2 is 4, I give this teaching to you, if you believe in 2+2=4 I will give you eternal life if not you will be sent to hell'. Now your response should be or for multiple reasons. I wasn't the one who taught you this, you've known and used math since before kindergarden, I can't give you life, if there is such a thing as god and an afterlife and God is good then everything is taken care of, so what do you need with me and my claims. This is like the Jews hearing Jesus (the way Jesus is portrayed in the NT that is) all the things you mentioned, with the exception of Jesus laying down his life to save the world, a Jew already knew and praticed. It would get kind of irritating to have someone then repeatedly keep saying- 'but you must believe in my 2+2=4 or all is lost for you', now you start to wonder about the sanity of this person.

    That's the problem of the Gospels. The problems of the rest of the NT only get worse, especially Paul's Epistles and Revelation. And that circles around to the point of this thread on Annihilation versus what Christianity has traditionally believed about the afterlife where they formally teach some go to Hell for eternal suffering. Any Jew hearing that would know the person teaching that concept wasn't getting that from Judaism. So now we see christians and whole Denominations abandoning this belief in Hell for good reasons.

  • Perry


    The reality of judgment is the completion of righteousness. Without it, laws are meaningless. No matter how bad you wish it wasn't so; if there is an all-good God, then he must judge evil or else he isn't all-good.

    There is no way in hell you can logically get around this. It is a logical impossibility.

    now you start to wonder about the sanity of this person.

    Ok Mr. Sanity; go ahead and explain how it is a bad thing when a judge doesn't do his job, but is in your mind a good thing when God doesn't. Or, are you an anarchist too?

  • bohm

    bump for perry.

  • tenyearsafter

    I may be missing something here, but I think Interestedone was referring to the JW take on eternal judgement, which is once you are dead you are dead for good...no paradise for you!

    Perry is coming from the point of view of the Christian belief of an eternity that can be either an eternity in heaven or an eternity in hell...either way, it is a conscious experience and not one of "here today, gone tomorrow".

    To argue for Perry's side would make no sense to someone indoctrinated in the JW world view of eternity. JW's do not believe in an immortal soul. If we look at death through the JW view, as Interestedone points out, then we really would have nothing to fear at judgement except staying dead.

    Perry's argument makes much more sense from the Christian viewpoint, since eternity is a conscious, living thing...eternal reward or eternal separation from God.

  • designs

    Tenyearsafter, Perry-

    This is one of the many areas where Judaism of the 1st century differed from the Christian community that developed. The basis for treatment in the afterlife was a reflection of how Judaism had grown in its understanding of human nature and its potential, sinning, good deeds in this life, and their perception of God as a good and loving Father concerned with helping all of his human family attain Gan Eden. Call it an early version of Universalism.

    There was a belief in a place of punishment in the afterlife for bad people but it was temporary and with the purpose of Rehabilitation. Once rehabilitated the person could enter Gan Eden with the rest of humanity. Rabbi Akiba, a contemporary of Peter and John wrote about the lack of Charity could cause a person to end up in Gehenna for instance.

    By calling the place of correction Gehinnom the Jews were relating the repulsiveness they felt of the pagans around them who tortured people. In the Talmud it states 'The Holy One, blessed be He, judges the wicked in Gehinnom for twelve months'. The school of Shammai believed that very evil people went there and were finally totally consumed whereas the school of Hillel considererd God compassionate and would not only redeem all in Gehinnom but do away with the place all together, basing it on Zechariah about God refining people like silver who have sinned. "Gehinnom will cease' Rabbi Hillel. Rabbi ben Azzai, a contemporary of Bishop Papias, was even more generous stating that the reward of the good deed is the good deed and the punishment of sin the sin.

    So you can see persons like 'Jesus' Paul and John were out of step with a more intellectual and enlightened Jewish Community. Just more reasons why the NT is so suspicious about its claims to Jewish roots. It may have had some start there but these fellows were not very magnanimous or bright and they certainly weren't keeping up with their studies at Synagogue. In fact it is this absense of discussion with the Rabbis that really exposes the Editors of the NT for being like the Watchtower Editors who like to play fast and loose with history, facts of science and religion.

    The problem with the Hell of Jesus imagination and his constant harassing of the Jewish community led Bishop Chrysostom to literally take Fire to Jews in Alexandria on Purim of 405CE killing many and driving several hundredthousand Jews from their homes, never to return. Bishop Chrysostom was merely following the monsterous lie posted in Matthew 27:25 'His blood be upon us' and went after the 'Christ killers'. Lies kill. Rabbi Ausubel.

    Shame on the Christian Community for ever gulping down this lie.

Share this