The Bizarre Free Will

by John_Mann 41 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

John_Mann

Two years before I left JW world I came to a strange conclusion about the JW cosmology and the free will doctrine.
Basically I came to conclusion that Satan is right about the universal sovereign issue. And I came with that just only using JW’s premises, no outside apostasy.
I just told to my sister what she thought about it, and she said to me: “Don’t tell anyone about this!”. LOL
Let me explain my idea:
1- Every being must possess free will.
2- If there is free will, there is the choice to evil.
3- If there is choice to evil, it can happen.
4- A perfect being can choose evil.
5- At least in the age of universe (+-13,7 bi), one third of perfect spiritual beings chose evil (1914, Final Battle). And two out three perfect human beings chose evil (Adam, Eve and Jesus between 6000 BCE and 33 CE). The only known exact trial time of a perfect human being is 33 and half years. It’s prophesized too the choice of the majority of perfect human beings at the end of millennial (among them are millennial born ins). Maybe another group of angels will rebel in that time too.
6- The choice of evil it’s not just a remote possibility, it really happened, happens now and will happen in the future (even in perfect worlds, spiritual and physical).
7- The choice of evil it’s more common than the choice of good.
8- If evil is practiced with no repentance, it must be punished with second death.
-----------------------------
Conclusion 1 (C1)- If free will exists evil and eternal destruction must exist too.
And:
1- There’s a universal sovereign issue.
2- To every created being came to existence before and while the issue, it must take a position in that.
3- No being can be created after the universal issue is settled.
4- This issue never more will be raised again. Everyone who question this issue will be instantly killed forever.
5- There is a finite number of beings who lived the settlement of universal issue.
6- These finite number of beings will always have free will.
7- It’s promised all pain and suffering will be deleted from our hearts. So there’s a future time when no one remember very well all the pain and suffering the humankind and angels passed through.
8- So there will be a distant future time when all the pain will be forget and that time will be just like before the raise of sovereign issue. And we back to premise 1 of conclusion 1.
9- C1- If free will exists evil and eternal destruction must exist too.
---------------------
Conclusion 2 (C2) – If will be a finite number of beings bearers of free will, eventually everyone will choose evil and will be automatically killed forever.
Paradox 1 : Satan was right about the universal sovereign issue.
Paradox 2: Jehovah itself and the immortality bearers: Jesus and the 144,000.
Rose Mary

There is no universal issue--it is the inventon of WT. First creation account found in Genesis chapter 1 says all humans were created IN GOD'S IMAGE, male and female SIMULTANEOUSLY. Chapter 2 and 3 are just a story borrowed and refined from other cultures.
And God's sovereignty can never be challenged, as Has put in place principle of causation--every one has to learn from the experiences, from the results. The wise will learn from others' experience. The rest will learn from their own experiences!
Perry

The universal sovereignty issue is a subterfuge. Christ didn't die to prove someone could be faithful. He died so that he'd absorb the death penalty for each who believe upon him. The specific doctrine they are trying to disguise is called Substitution.
John_Mann

Please I'm not talking about external doctrines.
I'm an atheist and I'm just using a method of deconstruction with only JW elements.
I want some objections based on JW doctrines. If a JW can accept the premises it must accept the conclusion.
Anybody see some flaw in one of my premises (considering the JW cosmology)?
Bobcat

Rose Mary:
God's sovereignty can never be challenged,
I'm trying to understand this saying. (And you are not the first to say this. So please don't take this personally.)
On the one hand, if you mean that God's rulership can never be successfully challenged, I could agree with that.
After all, He is almighty and all-knowing. Theoretically speaking, with these qualities, and regardless of whether God is right or wrong, He will always come out on top.
And thus, anyone who does "challenge" God's rulership is only doomed to failure from the get-go.
On the other hand, if you mean that God's rulership can never be challenged in any way, I can't see that.
When someone breaks the law (any law, not just God's), the lawbreaker is challenging the right of that lawmaking entity to rule over the lawbreaker. That is a basic principle of law. That is why the breaking of law normally requires a response from the lawmaker.
Whether the lawbreaker is capable of making a successful challenge is besides the point.
Whether the law involved is fair or not is also besides the point.
And whether the lawbreaker has a valid reason for breaking the law is also besides the point.
The fact that the lawbreaker acted contrary to the law, that act itself represents his challenge of the lawmaker's "rulership" or "sovereignty." In effect, the lawbreaker's unlawful act makes an "issue" of the lawmaker's assumed right to rule.
Additionally, how long the "issue" plays out before being settled is also besides the point.
It doesn't negate the fact of the initial "challenge."
Again, whether the lawmaker has a "right to rule" is besides the point. The lawmaker is attempting to rule by the very fact that he made that law. The lawbreaker's unlawful act is a challenge to that lawmaker.
And I would add:
How the lawmaker responds to the lawbreaker (whether good or bad) is also besides the point. It doesn't change the fact that the lawbreaker challenged the lawmaker's assumed 'right to rule' over the lawbreaker.
These are basic precepts of any rule based society. That is why I find the argument against the "universal sovereignty issue" hard to understand.
I could see where someone might dislike the terminology ("universal sovereignty"), although, to me God is ruler of the universe, and thus, "universal sovereignty" doesn't seem so outlandish.
I could also see someone finding flaws in the way the WT has explained how God has responded to the challenge. But that wouldn't change the basic idea that breaking the law creates an issue regarding the lawmaker's (assumed) right to rule and set laws.
This is how I understand "law," anyone's law, and the breaking of it. So please help me see where I'm failing to understand.
Take Care
John_Mann

But anybody can point out some flaw in my premises?
rebel8

I get hung up on this one.
4- A perfect being can choose evil.
adamah

Anybody see some flaw in one of my premises (considering the JW cosmology)?
(For the record, the proper term is 'JW theology', not 'JW cosmology', since the latter refers to their beliefs on the origins of the Universe.)
Right off the bat, I see a problem with your use of terminology: you probably should use the word "sin" rather than "evil", sin they're not synonyms.
Also, you probably should review the difference between "Divine Will" (where violating God's will is a sin, by definition) compared to "Free Will" (noting that the philosopher's use of the term is different from the theologists' definition).
It's also good to review the distinction that JWs draw between "Free Will" (which applies to situations where God hasn't expressed His Divine Will) and "Freedom of Choice" (where God HAS expressed His Divine Will).
Point being, you really don't need to work that hard to get to your conclusion (I've gotta run now, so no time to explain).
Adam
John_Mann
The point to consider is whether a perfect person created by God could do anything other than what is right. Far from making his creatures like robots, God granted them free will —the ability to make their own choices. Hence, a perfect , intelligent creature can choose to do good or to do evil . In reality, only deeds performed by an intelligent creature, human or spirit, endowed with free will could have real moral significance.
- w11 9/1 pp. 4-6
- Who Really Rules the World?
John_Mann

(For the record, the proper term is 'JW theology', not 'JW cosmology', since the latter refers to their beliefs on the origins of the Universe.)
Indeed, theology is better. Thanx!
Right off the bat, I see a problem with your use of terminology: you probably should use the word "sin" rather than "evil", sin they're not synonyms.
I understand. I think it's better use unforgivable sin. A sin with no return. Question the Jehovah's sovereignty is an US. After all the WT itself use that dicotonomy (evil/good) when mention freewill, b/c sin kind lacks an opposite specific term.
Also, you probably should review the difference between "Divine Will" (where violating God's will is a sin, by definition) compared to "Free Will" (noting that the philosopher's use of the term is different from the theologists' definition).
Yeah but in JW theology it's not a clear issue.
It's also good to review the distinction that JWs draw between "Free Will" (which applies to situations where God hasn't expressed His Divine Will) and "Freedom of Choice" (where God HAS expressed His Divine Will).
I don't see such distinction in JWT. In JWT free will = freedom of choice. If you only have the choice between good outputs (God's expressed will) it will not be considered freewill. Field service and bible study are two "divine will" options where you can choose, both good.
Point being, you really don't need to work that hard to get to your conclusion (I've gotta run now, so no time to explain).
Sure, but I want to do a logical pseudo code to get a JW assimilate and agree with every step. Then the logical conclusion it's beyond obvious.

The Bizarre Free Will

Share this