Posts by AlanF

2

To AlanF and interested ones. RE: GT reconsidered.

by TheApostleAK in

jw
friends

alan,.

i noticed in gtr your name is mentioned.

are you still in contact with coj?

AlanF

To The ApostleAK:

Yes, I communicate with COJ from time to time. AChristian has given a much better answer than I could.

Thanks for the info, AChristian!

AlanF

81

my observation is that persons who 1) heal/adjust the most rapidly from their jw experience and 2) seem to have the most joy in life are those who read, read, read, in pursuit of what i call nourishment for the spirit.

i've really enjoy the pithy aphorisms you use here, which suggests you've distilled some wisdom from somewhere.

i'm going to ask your help in this thread.

AlanF

I've read many, many books that were helpful to my understanding. Far too many to try to list, but I'll try to remember a smattering.

The ones with the most impact for me were books on geology and biological evolution. They showed that simple observed facts show that many of the Bible stories are just that -- stories. Some of the books I read are not the best ones in their field, but they gave me enough information to go on to look into better books.

Beginning in the early 1950s, geologists made a number of discoveries, in the field and in theory, that resulted in the modern theory of plate tectonics. Continental drift is part of that. A particularly interesting book on the development of these ideas and the scientists who developed them is The Road to Jaramillo. The title refers to the location of the place where the final bits of information were found that allowed geologists to put absolute dates on rocks that indicated continental drift, and resulted in the wide acceptance of plate tectonics.

Beginning in the 1960s, geologists also developed much better understandings of the ice ages and their cyclical nature. The basic ideas of one Milutin Milankovich came to be accepted, which show that ice ages come and go with a basic cycle of about 100,000 years, which corresponds to a basic orbital cycle of the earth around the sun in which the point of closest approach to the sun in an orbit makes a complete cycle every 100,000 years. This means that the closest approach sometimes occurs when the northern hemisphere is in summer, and sometimes when it is in winter. There are other cycles corresponding roughly to about 43,000, 22,000 and 19,000 years. The book Ice Ages (not absolutely sure about the title) by Imbrie and Imbrie shows how geologists made many discoveries in ocean sediment cores, ice cores and other places that showed conclusively that climate changes indeed occurred with these periods, and further indicated that we've undergone some 30 such cycles over the last 3 million years.

One of my favorite books on the evolution/creation controversy is Scientists Confront Creationists by Laurie Godfrey. It shows how creationists ignore and misrepresent physical evidence so as to 'prove' their religious beliefs.

Several books showed me how the story of Noah's Flood is actually two stories melded into one. My first introduction to this notion was Isaac Asimov's Guide to the Bible. When you put the two extracted stories side by side and read them together, it becomes obvious that each story stands on its own, and makes complete sense on its own, and that some of the information in each is not compatible with the information in the other. Clearly, some redactor combined two ancient myths.

A particularly interesting book for me was Cataclysms on the Columbia. It tells the personal story of how a determined geologist, J Harlan Bretz, discovered that massive ice age floods had shaped much of the topography of eastern Washington. A careful consideration of all of the geological features of this area, and how these massive floods fit in, completely disproves the notion of a global Noah's Flood.

The book The Historical Approach to the Bible by Howard Teeple shows how a careful, scholarly approach to understanding the Bible, as opposed to the blindly accepting approach used by Biblical Inerrantists, shows that the Bible is indeed the product of fallible humans. It shows how various New Testament writers pulled OT material out of context in order to 'prove' their beliefs about Jesus. Clearly, this grasping at straws such as the writer of Matthew displays, shows that the Bible is not inspired.

Sifting through large amounts of information like this is difficult but extremely rewarding. Somewhere along the line, as one matures and puts it all together into a reasonably coherent picture, one realizes that one does not need to have some other 'place' to go to in order to be comfortable with the fact that much of what one learned as a JW is nonsense. One realizes that simply by being in this intellectual journey, one is already 'there', and one does not need the emotional crutch of being told that one has absolute truth from an ancient book or from a modern organization. The journey itself is the goal. And a worthy one.

AlanF

4

Info please re Dateline airing

by lauralisa in

jw
friends

i understand that there will be a "dateline" show about the wtbs or whatever it's referred to now airing in the near future.. i'm clueless about tv but would like to see it; could anyone please give me details about what it will be about and when it will air?

thank you ..... ll.

it's just water.... it's just water from a stranger's tear.

AlanF

The program will be about how the Watchtower Society handles (or mishandles) child molesters in its midst, from the standpoint of William Bowen and various people who were molested by JWs. The program will probably air in September, but don't hold your breath.

AlanF

9

WTS Deception on Alternative Military Service

by AlanF in

jw
friends

until 1996 the watchtower society's official policy was that a young jw man who volunteered for alternative military service, rather than being imprisoned or letting a court sentence him to some kind of alternative civilian service, had violated christian neutrality and therefore was either to be disfellowshipped or declared to have voluntarily disassociated himself from the jw organization.

beginning in 1978, the governing body voted on changing this policy a number of times, and generally had a simple majority who voted for change, but because the gb had a policy that all changes needed a 2/3 majority, and that was never reached until 1996, the policy remained.. in 1996, it appears that jehovah changed his mind, and so via divine direction instructed the governing body to change its policy.

in the may 1, 1996 watchtower (pp.

AlanF

Until 1996 the Watchtower Society's official policy was that a young JW man who volunteered for alternative military service, rather than being imprisoned or letting a court sentence him to some kind of alternative civilian service, had violated Christian neutrality and therefore was either to be disfellowshipped or declared to have voluntarily disassociated himself from the JW organization. Beginning in 1978, the Governing Body voted on changing this policy a number of times, and generally had a simple majority who voted for change, but because the GB had a policy that all changes needed a 2/3 majority, and that was never reached until 1996, the policy remained.

In 1996, it appears that Jehovah changed his mind, and so via divine direction instructed the Governing Body to change its policy. In the May 1, 1996 Watchtower (pp. 18-20) the Society declared that it was now a matter of conscience if a young man opted for alternative military service, and elders should now respect that conscience by not disfellowshipping or disassociating him.

For the older position see 1991 Yearbook pp. 166-167, 1982 Yearbook pp. 226-227; The Watchtower 9/1/86 p. 20; Awake! 12/8/74 pp. 22-25, 9/22/66 pp. 21-23.

The relevant statements from these references are quoted below:

From the May 1, 1996 Watchtower, pp. 18-20:

Compulsory Military Service
If a dedicated, baptized Christian lives in a country where exemption from military service granted to ministers of religion, he may avail himself of this provision, for he is in fact a minister... What, though, if the Christian lives in a land where exemption is not granted to ministers of religion? Then he will have to make a personal decision following his Bible-trained conscience... While taking the authority of Caesar into account, he will weigh carefully what he owes to Jehovah...
Civilian Service
However, there are lands where the State, while not allowing exemption for ministers of religion, nevertheless acknowledges that some individuals may object to military service. Many of these lands make provision for such conscientious individuals not to be forced into military service. In some places a required civilian service, such as useful work in the community, is regarded as nonmilitary national service. Could a dedicated Christian undertake such service? Here again, a dedicated, baptized Christian would have to make his own decision on the basis of his Bible-trained conscience... citizens in some countries today are required by the State or by local authorities to participate in various forms of community service... Where such civilian service is for the good of the community and is not connected with false religion or is not in some other way objectionable to the consciences of Jehovah's Witnesses, they have often complied... What though, if the State requires a Christian for a period of time to perform civilian service that is a part of national service under a civilian administration? Here again, Christians must make their own decision based on an informed conscience... Christians faced with a requirement of Caesar should prayerfully study the matter and meditate on it. It may also be wise to talk the matter over with mature Christians in the congregation. After this a personal decision must be made.

At this point the reader might have gotten the impression that, since both have been declared "matters of conscience", compulsory military and civilian service is exactly that, and the Watchtower Society is now "allowing" (meaning, "will not disfellowship for") such service.

Not so! As the material below shows, alternative military service has always been "a matter of conscience", but JWs who violated the Society's intent found themselves disfellowshipped.

The real answer is found in paragraph 21 on page 20:

What if the Christian's honest answers to such questions lead him to conclude that the national civilian service is a "good work" that he can perform in obedience to the authorities? That is his decision before Jehovah. Appointed elders and others should fully respect the conscience of the brother and continue to regard him as a Christian in good standing. If, however, a Christian feels that he cannot perform this civilian service, his position should also be respected. He too remains in good standing and should receive loving support.

Note that only "national civilian service", which includes alternative military service, has been explicitly allowed by the Society's instruction to elders to "respect the conscience of the brother and continue to regard him as a Christian in good standing". This is WTS jargon for "While for political/legal reasons we have to pretend that these are individual decisions, here is the real policy on thus-and-so." The policy on a given item is found, not by its standing as a matter of conscience, but by whether the Society instructs elders to disfellowship JWs for going against the Society's non-publicly-stated policy in these "matters of conscience".

Confusing? Sure. But that's by design.

The next quotations show the Watchtower Society's old policy on alternative military service:

From Awake!, December 8, 1974, pp. 22-25, article entitled "The Netherlands Frees Imprisoned Witnesses":

Jehovah's witnesses in the Netherlands have refused, not only military service, but also any noncombatant work offered as a substitute. The Scriptural reason for their stand will be considered later in this article... [p. 22]
On March 26, 1971, three representatives of Jehovah's witnesses met with a forum representing the ministries of Defense and Justice. The discussion lasted two and a half hours.
One of the first points of discussion presented by the forum was this: "That you wish no part in perfoming military service is clear and needs no further explanation. But what really is your objection to civil, alternative service?"
The Witnesses explained that it is not that they are opposed to civil service as such, but, rather, it is a matter of strict neutrality. Therefore, any work that is merely a substitute for military service would be unacceptable to Jehovah's witnesses.
Other question narrowed the issue down still further. "When a person objects to military service," the government's agents declared, "he passes from military jurisdiction on to civil jurisdiction and from that moment has nothing at all to do with the military. Why, then, is the accepting of such civil service still so objectionable?"
Willingly accepting such work is objectionable to the Christian because of what God's law says about the matter: "You were bought with a price; stop becoming slaves of men." (1 Cor. 7:23) Civilian servitude as a substitute for military service would be just as objectionable to the Christian. In effect, he would thereby become a part of the world instead of keeping separate as Jesus commanded.--John 15:19; 17:14-16. [p. 24]

From Awake!, September 22, 1966, pp. 21-23, article "Jehovah's Witnesses in Sweden Exempted from Conscription":

[ In Sweden] every male citizen between the ages of eighteen and forty-seven who is not handicapped is liable to undergo military training and serve for a specified period of time. If one has serious conscientious objection against the use of weapons, he may apply for noncombatant service, now called "weapons-free" service. Since 1943 this has consisted mostly of working in the forest or some other job for various governmental purposes, though the person would still be under martial law. But because of their religious beliefs Jehovah's witnesses in Sweden refused, not only military service, but also any noncombatant work offered as a substitute. However, many judges and prosecutors saw the injustice of sending otherwise irreproachable men to prison just because of their religious convictions.
Committee Appointed to Study Matter
As a result, a committee was appointed to look into the matter and make suggestions for a new law. A number of suggestions were then submitted to this committee, among them a proposal that Jehovah's witnesses be allowed whatever kind of work would be acceptable to them, and if there were no such, then for the government to leave the Witnesses alone.
So in time the committee suggested to Jehovah's witnesses various kinds of work. One was to work for some private institution or employer for the same length of time as the required term of military service, but part of their wages would go to some charitable institution. However, these offers presented to Jehovah's witnesses subject to conscription were refused. Their individual decision based on their own understanding of the Bible was that they could not conscientiously participate in any work that would be a substitute for military service. As ministers representing God's heavenly kingdom, they stated that they must remain neutral regarding this world's political and military affairs, just as an ambassador from one nation must refrain from participating in the political and military affairs of another country in which he may live. (2 Cor. 5:10; Eph. 6:20) And anyone who has talked to Jehovah's witnesses in Sweden realizes that they take their obligations to God seriously.
Therefore, in their comments concerning a new law the committee stated that Jehovah's witnesses had not accepted any proposal for substitute work. [pp. 21-2]

Commenting on the Swedish government's decision on how to handle conscientious objectors who are Witnesses, the 1991 Yearbook said (pp. 166-7):

Renewed Attempts to Seek Compromise
After this decision was made by parliament, attempts have been made to have us substitute compulsory work for military service. In the early 1970's, a governmental committee was appointed to review the handling of conscientious objectors. For the sake of uniformity, the authorities wanted Jehovah's Witnesses to serve on terms similar to those for other religious groups and do compulsory work as a substitute.
Representatives of the branch office appeared before the committee, explaining that the Witnesses could not accept any substitute for military service whatsoever, no matter how praiseworthy the task. They showed that Jehovah's Witnesses already do a form of social work in their house-to-house ministry, helping people clean up their lives and become decent, law-abiding citizens. Then one of the committe members came up with a most surprising idea.
He wondered if we would agree to engage in that house-to-house ministry on a full-time basis within our own congregations for a period--corresponding to that of compulsory service--and report this to the authorities as a substitute. The brothers explained that our service to God can never be compulsory or a State affair. Finally, the committee suggested retaining the 1966 decision, concluding in its final report: "According to the committee's opinion, there do not exist, at the present, other religious groups in our country that can be compared with Jehovah's Witnesses."

Despite the Society's lying claims that this avoidance of compulsory alternative service is purely a decision reached by JWs on their own, the following article lumps such service with killing and saluting the flag, both disfellowshipping issues. From the September 1, 1986 Watchtower, p. 20, the article "Christian Neutrals in a Bloodstained World" said of Jehovah's Witnesses:

These Christians continued to pay back Caesar's things to Caesar. They obeyed the laws of the land as upright citizens. (Matthew 22:17-21; Romans 13:1-7) But more importantly, they paid back to God the things that belonged to him, including their dedicated lives and Christian worship. Hence, when Caesar demanded to have God's things, they acted in harmony with the principles stated at Acts 4:19 and 5:29. Whether the issue was shedding blood, noncombatant military work, alternative service, or saluting an image such as a national flag, faithful Christians took the position that there was no middle ground. In some cases they were executed because of this stand.-Matthew 24:9; Revelation 2:10.

Finally, the Society has admitted that a number of young JWs went to prison unnecessarily. From the 1982 Yearbook, pp. 226-7, concerning events in Italy:

As the number of Witnesses increased, the issue was continually brought to the attention of the public and the authorities alike. Finally, a law was approved decreeing that those who do not agree to do alternative service shall be sentenced to one single prison term, so that our young brothers are now given from 12 to 15 months' imprisonment...
From 1978 to 1980 there have been, on an average, 500 young brothers a year in prison on account of the neutrality issue. It is calculated that up to the present, several thousand Witnesses have kept a clear conscience before Jehovah God in this respect. In December 1980, the defense minister announced over national television that a parliamentary bill that would further improve the position of our brothers is under consideration. During the interview he described the Witnesses as "decent people" and declared that with the new law "the State will show respect for all religions."
The conduct of young Witnesses with regard to Christian neutrality has served to enhance the esteem enjoyed by Jehovah's people.

Finally, let's briefly consider how the Society has stated that all violators of "neutrality" should be dealt with.

The elder's manual Pay Attention to Yourselves and to All the Flock states on page 101, under the subtopic "Implications of Disassociation":

Whereas disfellowshipping is an action taken by a judicial committee against unrepentant wrongdoers, disassociation is an action taken by an individual who has decided that he no longer desires to be one of Jehovah's Witnesses... If an individual takes a course contrary to the neutral position of the Christian congregation, the congregation is compelled to view him as one who has chosen to separate from us."

Concerning how such people are to be treated, this manual states on page 103:

Disassocated one are shunned by those who wish to have a good relationship with Jehovah.

In summary, then, in literature written for the general public, the Watchtower Society has usually declared alternative military service to be a matter of conscience. But its actions toward those who had the audacity to follow through and actually exercise their consciences in a manner different from the JW leadership's private directives showed that this was a lie. Explicit policy has been that persons who accepted alternative military service would be declared to have violated "Christian neutrality" and would be declared to have "disassociated" themselves by their actions, which is just another form of disfellowshipping or shunning.

It is ironic that, by a simple stroke of the pen, the Society has nullified the sacrifices all those young men made in the name of "Christian neutrality", those who went to jail rather than accept non-military alternatives. One can only wonder how such young men can accept this pen-stroke as "spiritual food" from Jehovah, channeled through "the faithful and discreet slave". It seems clear that this self-declared "slave" is neither faithful nor discreet.

Writing in Crisis of Conscience (pp. 101-3, 129-31), Raymond Franz indicates that these policies were developed by Fred Franz and Nathan Knorr (vice president and president of the Watchtower Society) during WWII. After the current Governing Body arrangement came into effect in 1976, the matter of alternative military service was brought before the new Governing Body at least six times between 1978 and 1980. On most occasions the majority voted to change the policy, as was done in May, 1996, but because it takes a two-thirds majority to change a previous policy, and only a simple majority voted for the change, no change was made. For more details see Raymond Franz's In Search of Christian Freedom, pp. 256-270.

Of course, most Jehovah's Witnesses will pretend that all this nonsense is brought to them courtesy of Jehovah.

AlanF

56

The Name Jehovah

by ruffian in

jw
friends

please can someone shed light on the claim that when the bible was originaly written it had the name jehovah in it over 7000 times but it was changed because of superstition?

how do you dispute it?

exactly where did they get that crazy version of their bible anyway?

AlanF

The original Hebrew and Aramaic parts of the Bible (as shown by the oldest of the Masoretic texts, circa 1100 A.D., and the Dead Sea Scrolls, circa 100-200 B.C.) certainly used the word "YHWH" (or "JHVH") for the personal name of God. This does appear around 7000 times. Modern English Bible translations usually render this as "Yahweh" (cf. New Jerusalem Bible) and olders ones often render it as "Jehovah". Most modern translations don't render it as a name at all, but as "LORD" or "God". Such translations do a disservice, I think, to the original texts.

There are no New Testament texts that contain any form of "YHWH", either in the Hebrew form or in translation. Thus, any translation that uses "Jehovah" or something similar in the NT, in place of "Lord" or "God ("kyrios" or "theos") is not being true to the text.

There is some evidence that the early versions of the Greek Septuagint version of the Hebrew bible used "YHWH" written directly in the ancient Hebrew letters. However, almost all extant manuscripts do not contain it, but use "theos" or "kyrios" instead.

By the time of Christ it appears that most Jews did not use "YHWH" in their worship, but used other words instead. This was due to a reverence for the divine name that perhaps went beyond common sense to the point that the name became more of a magical talisman than a useful name for God. It is virtually certain (according to most scholars) that by about 100 A.D. no Jew or Christian used "YHWH" in normal worship. All Greek manuscripts of either the NT or the LXX after about that date did not use "YHWH".

When the Jewish Masoretes, who ended up being the keepers of the Hebrew bible, added "vowel pointing" to their manuscripts beginning around the 7th century A.D., they generally "pointed" "YHWH" with vowels that were nonsensical in terms of regular Hebrew usage. Sometimes they used the vowels of "adonai" (Lord) and sometimes of "elohim" (God) and sometimes something else. It was understood that when the reader encountered the pointed "YHWH" when reading, he mentally or orally substituted "Lord". This was all due to the long established practice of avoiding pronouncing the divine name.

AlanF

4

U.K. Elders Please Contact Me

by AlanF in

jw
friends

any u.k. elders who can provide me some inside information -- please contact me at [email protected] .

thanks.. alanf

AlanF

Bringing this to the top.

9

children, abuse, and the law

by peaceloveharmony in

jw
friends

today for work, i was scheduled to attend a training session called "mandatory reporting".

since i work in the public sector and i work for children (as a child support collections officer) i am mandated by state law to "make a child protection report if [i] know or have reason to believe that: a child is being neglected or abused; or has been neglected or abused in the preceding three years".

(quote from the handbook passed out at meeting).

AlanF

Interesting info, PLH. Thanks for posting it.

That business about being "employed" is important, so please do find out how state agencies interpret it. "Employment" might include performing clergy duties without being paid. Also important is how state agencies would distinguish between a JW "minister" who is an elder and one who is not.

A very important question is raised by the language of the "privilege" statute. It clearly states that a clergyman or minister cannot be compelled to disclose 'privileged' information without the consent of the confessor. The interesting question here is whether a clergyman can be compelled to disclose if the confessor explicitly requests it. I'm asking this because the WTS has used these "ecclesiastical privilege" statutes to avoid testifying in court cases even when the person that is supposed to be protected by the laws requests it and even when the elders' failure to testify injures the confessor. To me, this is a gross misuse of these laws and it needs to be explicitly addressed by state legislators.

AlanF

4

U.K. Elders Please Contact Me

by AlanF in

jw
friends

any u.k. elders who can provide me some inside information -- please contact me at [email protected] .

thanks.. alanf

AlanF

Any U.K. elders who can provide me some inside information -- please contact me at [email protected] . Thanks.

AlanF

71

Bethel Getting Paranoid, Tightening Screws

by AlanF in

jw
friends

i have it from solid sources that brooklyn and patterson are now recording all incoming telephone calls.. a word to the wise if you have friends there you talk to.. alanf

AlanF

Hi ianao:

Glad to see you working!

You might also try the Patterson, NY number: 845-306-1000. If you call, you might try getting past the operator by asking a question about JW beliefs. They have people available for this. After your discussion, ask the guy about recording.

However, beware of theocratic warfare. If the operator or responder tells you he can't tell you, ask if that means he flat-out doesn't know, or that he's been forbidden to tell anyone. Don't let them squirm away with an evasive answer.

AlanF

41

back to basics

by cnn77 in

jw
friends

as soeone raised in the truth my whole life i am struggling with a basic doctrinal issue.

the issue has to do with universal sovreignty and the ransom sacrifice.

let me try to illustrate by way of analogy:.

AlanF

The JW doctrine of the "ransom sacrifice" is absurd, start to finish. JWs accept it without clearly thinking through the implications. Any person who acted as God is supposed to be acting would be termed criminally insane by almost everyone, including JWs.

The doctrine is based on the notion of "life for life", i.e., Adam lost his right to life and so Jesus volunteered to die so as to give to God an equivalent value -- another "right to life". But making this equivalence is absurd on several counts. Suppose you have two sons. One violates a house rule and must be punished. Would it make any sense for the other to volunteer to take the punishment for the wrongdoer? Of course not. The principle is nonsensical even in terms of ancient criminal laws. Suppose there are two brothers and one murders a third man. Are ancient notions of justice satisfied if the innocent man volunteers to be executed in place of the murderer? Of course not. Not even the most braindead of JWs would argue otherwise. Yet this is what they believe God demanded of Jesus -- that he die to satisfy the crimes of another man. The JW notion amounts to nothing more than "bad things must come in pairs for justice to be satisfied". In other words, a crime requires punishment, and it doesn't matter who gets punished as long as someone is.

By now the typical JW defender will be wanting to switch gears and say, "Oh! But God wasn't punishing Jesus for Adam's sin. Adam lost the right to life for his offspring and Jesus magnanimously paid it back." Well, duh! Who was the price paid to? Some unspecified entity? Not according to the JW doctrine, although the Society's complete silence on this proves that JW writers understand the problem very well. According to this, it was God who received the "ransom payment". So if God could demand a ransom payment, he could equally well not demand it. What standard (if you can call it that) aside from God's arbitrary demand dictated what was paid to who?

Then we might consider the basic JW reasoning behind "man's fall into sin and death". This too is absurd. Supposedly God created Adam with a sinless nature, perfect in body and mind, fully able to control his desires and, most of all, fully able to obey God. Indeed, the ability to fully obey God is the very definition of "sinlessless", and the inherent inability to fully obey God is the very definition of "inherited sin" in JW dogma. The JW story is that Adam, upon committing an act of sin, lost his perfection and became sinful. But that is absurd because the doctrine is saying that a mere commission of some act cause Adam's genetic makeup to change from one where he was fully able to obey God to one where he was not. This inability, so the story goes, then passed to all of Adam's offspring.

The problem with this doctrine is that it completely ignores the mechanism for the supposed genetic changes. A man manufactures sperm according to a fixed pattern set in his DNA. If Adam's DNA, upon his creation, contained a blueprint for "perfection", i.e., the ability to fully obey God, and then after his "sin" his DNA did not contain that blueprint, then something must have changed the DNA. What was the mechanism? There are only two reasonable ones: (1) God changed the DNA. (2) God built a mechanism into Adam's body that automatically changed the DNA upon Adam's knowingly committing an act of sin. But in both cases, it is God who is responsible for the changes. In other words, it is God himself who caused Adam to become unable to fully obey him. And if God himself caused such a change, the immediately obvious question is, Why? Just why would God make his first intelligent human creation unable to fully obey him? There are no good answers, and the Society knows this because they have never given any. And of course, if God arbitrarily changed Adam's DNA, then he could equally well do anything else he pleased, including not changing it, and not demanding that a third party die in order to pay back this imaginary debt.

Then we have the claim that God and Jesus did such a wonderful thing for mankind by so lovingly providing "a way out". But God himself created the need for this "way out", and so if God wanted a world full of "perfect" humans beings, he had no choice but to figure out some way to undo the things he had done. So his providing a mechanism to undo damage that he himself had created was no big thing. Furthermore, JWs make a big deal out of Jesus' sacrificing his life for mankind. But they don't seem to stop to think that it was a no-brainer for Jesus to do that. Think about it in terms of JW doctrine: Jesus is given a choice -- die as a man and become the second ruler of the universe, or disobey God and die forever. What kind of choice is that? Jesus would have to be insane to make any other than comply with God. Furthermore, Jesus only gave up a human life. He was immediately resurrected to a much more glorious life as a spirit creature. So Jesus certainly did not give up "his life" -- he only changed from one form of life to another.

We also have the JW doctrine that Satan challenged God to prove that mankind would only obey God out of selfishness. Well of course, that's a pretty hard thing to challenge when everyone knows that disobeying God will result in one's death. So it's a stupid doctrine to begin with. But let's assume that that's what God allowed, and go from there.

As the all-knowing creator of man, and as the one who put all of man's design specifications "down in writing", all God would have to do to prove anything about man's abilities would be to refer to the specifications. Case closed. To argue against that logic is to argue that God did not know what he had created. That the angelic onlookers would be able to fully understand these design specifications is proved by the 'fact' that they knew enough about human design to materialize human bodies before Noah's Flood and have them function so perfectly that they could get women pregnant. That takes care of both the "perfect" Adam, and his "imperfect" offspring. By design, Adam was fully able to obey God. By design, Adam's imperfect offspring were not. And of course, the design specs would show that at least some humans would be born with the nature to be more inclined to obey God than others. No physical demonstration lasting thousands of years would be needed.

How about the question of God's sovereignty? Did that need to be answered? Of course not. All intelligent heavenly creatures would obviously know that God is all-powerful, so that completely takes care of the sovereignty question. An all-powerful being is by definition sovereign.

But JWs will opine, "Well, the question was not about God's power but about his right to rule, his justice etc." Well, given the braindeadness of the JW ransom doctrine and related notions, as described above, it's clear that a God who would do such idiotic things as JWs believe would of course be unfit to rule anyone who has the moral sense that most humans have. All of which shows either that JWs have little idea what the Bible is saying, or that the Bible itself is completely screwy.

A few Christians have some explanations for the "ransom sacrifice" doctrine that are much less transparently nonsensical than JW notions, but these too have serious problems. I'll leave that for another thread.

AlanF