Posts by Disillusioned JW

162

A new generation of anointed that will not pass away.

by Fisherman in

obviously, the older “ anointed ” from 1914 died.

and because they were anointed, they hopefully went to heaven.

in the first century though, a newer generation did not replace the old.

Disillusioned JW

In page 6 of this topic thread some said that all true Christians go to heaven and some say that some (but not all) true Christians go to heaven. Indeed there are scriptures (such as in some of Paul's letters) which say all true Christians will go to heaven and be there for at least a time, but some verses say (or imply) they will return to Earth after the 1,000 years.

However there are scriptures which say that all true Christians will rule on Earth. Furthermore, as I pointed out in a post on page 5 of this topic thread, the NT scholar Bart Ehrman pointed out (see https://www.npr.org/2020/03/31/824479587/heaven-and-hell-are-not-what-jesus-preached-religion-scholar-says ) that Jesus taught that the kingdom would be on Earth and that he did not teach that believers in him would go to heaven.

The Bible's book called "Daniel' in chapter 2 relates a purported vision (which the book says is prophetic) depicting a stone from heaven smashing a statue which is upon planet Earth. In the purported vision the stone grows to become a large mountain which filled the whole Earth (Daniel 2;35). Notice that it does not say the mountain is in heaven, but rather it says it is on the Earth. Tthough by saying the stone came out heaven, the account says the kingdom represented by the mountain gets its authority from the God of heaven, and such is stated in Daniel 2:44-45.

The Bible's book called "According to Matthew" says that Jesus said that his 12 apostles (including Judas?) will sit sit upon 12 thrones and judge the 12 tribes of Israel (Matthew 19:28). The book also says that in the kingdom people will come from the east and the west, and thus from various places of the Earth to dine (or recline, such as at table) with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven (Matthew 8:11). [That understanding of it being on Earth is more clearly expressed in the NLT which says "will come from all over the world and sit down with ...".] Those two verses when combined show that according to the book called "According to Matthew" Jesus taught the kingdom of heaven would be on the Earth.

Revelation 1:6 says that Christ made Christians "to be a kingdom". Most of the modern translations (making use of better manuscripts that those used as a basis for the KJV) in English say 'kingdom" instead of "kings" (though the KJV and NKJV say "kings", the NKJV translators' note says "NU, M a kingdom"). Revelation 5:10 in a number of modern translations say the Christians are to rule on (not simply over) the Earth and even the KJV says that. At Revelation 5:10 the KJV, the 1984 NIV, the TNIV, the NKJV, and the NLT say "on the earth". The RSV, the NRSV, and the REB say "on earth". The RV, the ARV (namely the "American Revised Version, released in 1898 by Oxford and Cambridge), the ASV, the 1977 NASB, and the NASB Updated say "upon the earth". Even the WT's Kingdom Interlinear Translation (KIT) in its interlinear word for word literal translation says "upon the earth".

These observations when I was a Christian doing independent research of the Bible was a big figurative eye opener to me and revealed to me that according to the Bible Christians would be ruling on the Earth, at least after the 1,000 years, even if prior to that they spend some time in heaven (such as during the battle of Armageddon and perhaps during the 1,000 years). It came to be another reason why I (while still a Christian) concluded that the JW religion is much out of harmony with the Bible, and that the Church of God (Abrahamic Faith) and the Church of God (Seventh Day) are the two Christian religions which are the closest to the Bible's teachings. See https://www.guthriegrove.church/our-beliefs which says the following "Jesus will return to the earth literally, visibly and personally to raise the dead in Christ and to change the living saints to immortality .... At Jesus’ second coming the Kingdom of God will be set up as a literal everlasting kingdom throughout the entire earth with Christ as king and his immortalized saints as co-rulers with him ...." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_God_General_Conference says that the church's teachings "... include belief in ... the literal premillennial second coming of Jesus Christ, those who have accepted the gospel will be resurrected at the return of Christ, and promises of God to Abraham will be literally fulfilled, referred to as the "Kingdom of God" being established on Earth." http://www.churchofgod-7thday.org/Summit/SecondComing.html says the following. "Satan then will be bound for 1,000 years and Jesus will set up His kingdom on the earth. The saints will reign with Him, during this period, on the earth." https://www.cog7denver.org/statement-of-faith.html says of Jesus that "He reigns as Lord in heaven and will return to earth as judge and king." The web page also says the church teaches "... the imminent return of Christ and the eventual establishment of God’s eternal kingdom on earth." The web page also says the following. "Jesus will return to earth in power and glory to resurrect the righteous dead, bestow immortality and eternal life upon the resurrected and the living righteous, avenge the saints, and be glorified in them. His earthly reign of one thousand years will be a universal kingdom in which all principalities, powers, and enemies are overcome."

Though the 1984 NWT in Revelation 5:10 says "over the earth" that is likely to support their doctrinal view that the 144,000 and Christ will rule in heaven. And while some other Bibles (such as the Bible edited/translated by Goodspeed and Smith, called The Complete Bible: An American Translation) also says "over the earth" that wording does necessarily mean that the ruling is said to be not on the Earth. It doesn't necessarily mean above the Earth (like in the sky in a spiritual heaven). For example, people often speak of kings, presidents, and other humans located on Earth as ruling over parts of the Earth, such as ruling over the USA. They don't mean those people are ruling in heaven.

162

A new generation of anointed that will not pass away.

by Fisherman in

obviously, the older “ anointed ” from 1914 died.

and because they were anointed, they hopefully went to heaven.

in the first century though, a newer generation did not replace the old.

Disillusioned JW

Vanderhoven7, it is true that the governing body of the Jehovah's Witnesses are not anointed of Jehovah (or of Jesus). Furthermore, some of the evidence of that are that which you and others have pointed out. But it is not just the governing body of the Jehovah's Witnesses who are not anointed.

No one is anointed of YHWh (Jehovah), not even the Jesus whom you and many others believe is the Messiah, the Christ, and the Anointed. That is because YHWH God does not exist and because a heavenly Jesus Christ does not exist. Part of the reasoning in support of that is mentioned in my pro-naturalism posts in this topic thread. That is another reason why those posts are relevant to this topic thread and thus are not a hijacking of this topic thread. I was trying to get you and other Christians to see that the whole foundation for your beliefs regarding the anointed is majorly flawed.

162

A new generation of anointed that will not pass away.

by Fisherman in

obviously, the older “ anointed ” from 1914 died.

and because they were anointed, they hopefully went to heaven.

in the first century though, a newer generation did not replace the old.

Disillusioned JW

Sea Breeze, except for when being bombarded by political talk while watching the news and while reading the news, and when it is time for me to think about what I should vote for in an upcoming election, I don't think about politics nearly as much as I think about scientific naturalism. I wish the news broadcast said far less about about politics and far more about science news.

162

A new generation of anointed that will not pass away.

by Fisherman in

obviously, the older “ anointed ” from 1914 died.

and because they were anointed, they hopefully went to heaven.

in the first century though, a newer generation did not replace the old.

Disillusioned JW

Sea Breeze said the following to me.

"But, this isn't really about promoting or defending scientific naturalism is it? It is really about you being troubled that Christians don't vote like you do, right?

So why don't you just stop beating around the bush and start a topic on a political issue that you think you can defend?"

That grossly mischaracterizes my view, but perhaps you misunderstood me. My reasons are as stated in my earlier post and its primarily really about promoting scientific naturalism.

Here is some background. When I decided to become a JW and why I remained a JW for so long was largely because I valued truth and because I had thought (though incorrectly) that the JW religion was the true religion (it does have some correct ideas, but I later learned it also has a great many of false ideas). Furthermore, on many occasions when I hear someone (anyone) say something to me (or around me) that I strongly disagree with I will state my disagreement with them and attempt to correct their thinking. It is a major part of my inborn nature due to my love of truth. Likewise my love of truth and my desire to promote it drives me to now promote and defend scientific naturalism. Naturalism refutes a tremendous number of false ideas since it refutes all the greatly numerous supernaturalistic ideas. That is very important to me.

The political reasons I stated in my earlier post are tertiary (not even secondary), or perhaps not even tertiary, whereas my concern for truth for its own sake is primary. During the initial years I was a naturalist I didn't have any political reasons as a part of my motivation for promoting naturalism. It was simply out of a love for truth and a hatred of falsehood (including a hatred and a disgust of various superstitions). But some Christians criticized that, saying to me why should I be concerned that people believe in the supernatural if does no harm to them and no harm to you (namely to me). The Christians said to me 'why not let religious people believe in their religious beliefs rather than trying to change their views'. They say that Christians promote Christianity in order to save people from going to hell and give people hope and thus to make people have a lives better, and they said what can atheism offer people to help them. I then started to pay more attention in how Christianity harms people in various ways and I began seeing more so than I did in the past how that also happens through fundamentalist evangelical conservative politics in the USA. As I paid attention more to political news I began to more clearly see how conservative/fundamentalist evangelical Christian derived politics does a number of bad things and thus I began mentioning that also as a reason why naturalism should be adopted.

Your comments show that when atheistic naturalists don't mention concern for people's lives as part of the message of promoting naturalism that some Christians criticize them for that; and that if atheistic naturalists do mention concern for people lives as part of the message of promoting naturalism that some Christians criticize for that also. Figuratively speaking, the atheistic naturalists are dammed in the minds of some Christians if they don't and dammed in the minds of some Christians if they do.

162

A new generation of anointed that will not pass away.

by Fisherman in

obviously, the older “ anointed ” from 1914 died.

and because they were anointed, they hopefully went to heaven.

in the first century though, a newer generation did not replace the old.

Disillusioned JW

Sea Breeze the words you quoted of Hawking forms part of a core basis of what Hawking said which convinced me no deistic being exists. Hawking says that gravity (by which he means the potential energy of gravity) is a type of negative energy. He says that because of its existence the grand sum total of the universe's mass-energy equals ZERO. That is because the sum of all of the negative energies cancels out all of the positive energies of the universe. Because of that (according to Hawking, Stenger, Lawrence M. Krauss, and other atheistic scientists) the universe could have come into existence from nothing (at least that which is commonly thought of as nothing) - without a being having created it. Lawrence M. Krauss is the physicist author of the book called A Universe from Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather than Nothing. One review of that book is the following.

“Nothing is not nothing. Nothing is something. That's how a cosmos can be spawned from the void -- a profound idea conveyed in A Universe From Nothing that unsettles some yet enlightens others. Meanwhile, it's just another day on the job for physicist Lawrence Krauss.”
-- Neil deGrasse Tyson, Astrophysicist, American Museum of Natural History

Victor Stenger agrees with this and further points that out many of that which are called 'laws' of physics are conservation 'laws' (such as one which one which is stated as 'that matter-energy cannot be created or destroyed, only transformed') and as such they could have arisen spontaneously. Victor Stenger gives a different explanation of the coming into existence (in the distant past) of other so-called 'laws' of physics.

Those scientists (and others) say that though there are that which are called 'laws' of science that does not mean they were made by a law maker (such as a creator god/God). The term "laws of science" simply means that the universe in a number of aspects acts in a consistent manner.

A Universe from Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather than Nothing: Krauss, Lawrence M.: 9781451624465: Amazon.com: Books states the following from the Preface of the above-mentioned book by Krauss.

'Before going further, I want to devote a few words to the notion of “nothing”—a topic that I will return to at some length later. For I have learned that, when discussing this question in public forums, nothing upsets the philosophers and theologians who disagree with me more than the notion that I, as a scientist, do not truly understand “nothing.” (I am tempted to retort here that theologians are experts at nothing.)

“Nothing,” they insist, is not any of the things I discuss. Nothing is “nonbeing,” in some vague and ill-defined sense. This reminds me of my own efforts to define “intelligent design” when I first began debating with creationists, of which, it became clear, there is no clear definition, except to say what it isn’t. “Intelligent design” is simply a unifying umbrella for opposing evolution. Similarly, some philosophers and many theologians define and redefine “nothing” as not being any of the versions of nothing that scientists currently describe.

But therein, in my opinion, lies the intellectual bankruptcy of much of theology and some of modern philosophy. For surely “nothing” is every bit as physical as “something,” especially if it is to be defined as the “absence of something.” It then behooves us to understand precisely the physical nature of both these quantities. And without science, any definition is just words.

A century ago, had one described “nothing” as referring to purely empty space, possessing no real material entity, this might have received little argument. But the results of the past century have taught us that empty space is in fact far from the inviolate nothingness that we presupposed before we learned more about how nature works. Now, I am told by religious critics that I cannot refer to empty space as “nothing,” but rather as a “quantum vacuum,” to distinguish it from the philosopher’s or theologian’s idealized “nothing.”

So be it. But what if we are then willing to describe “nothing” as the absence of space and time itself? Is this sufficient? Again, I suspect it would have been . . . at one time. But, as I shall describe, we have learned that space and time can themselves spontaneously appear, so now we are told that even this “nothing” is not really the nothing that matters. And we’re told that the escape from the “real” nothing requires divinity, with “nothing” thus defined by fiat to be “that from which only God can create something.”

It has also been suggested by various individuals with whom I have debated the issue that, if there is the “potential” to create something, then that is not a state of true nothingness. And surely having laws of nature that give such potential takes us away from the true realm of nonbeing. But then, if I argue that perhaps the laws themselves also arose spontaneously, as I shall describe might be the case, then that too is not good enough, because whatever system in which the laws may have arisen is not true nothingness.

Turtles all the way down? I don’t believe so. ... Surely, invoking “God” to avoid difficult questions of “how” is merely intellectually lazy. After all, if there were no potential for creation, then God couldn’t have created anything. It would be semantic hocus-pocus to assert that the potentially infinite regression is avoided because God exists outside nature and, therefore, the “potential” for existence itself is not a part of the nothingness from which existence arose.'

162

A new generation of anointed that will not pass away.

by Fisherman in

obviously, the older “ anointed ” from 1914 died.

and because they were anointed, they hopefully went to heaven.

in the first century though, a newer generation did not replace the old.

Disillusioned JW

Sea Breeze it is just a pause. I will make further pro-atheism posts and further rebuttals to remarks made to me by Christian apologists. You can count on that.

How about this one. Deism had what appeared to be a very strong case in the time when Newton lived and at least into the late 18th century, but such is no longer the situation. Reading something written by Hawking disproved (at least to me to beyond a reasonable doubt) that no deistic god exists in regards to our universe. Later I read some books by Victor Stenger which further strengthened the case (at leas tin my mind) against deism.

162

A new generation of anointed that will not pass away.

by Fisherman in

obviously, the older “ anointed ” from 1914 died.

and because they were anointed, they hopefully went to heaven.

in the first century though, a newer generation did not replace the old.

Disillusioned JW

Sea Breeze I don't feel the need to address every remark (both online and offline) against something I said. It would be very time consuming and thus very tiresome to rebut every remark against something I said. I thus choose which remarks to respond to and which not to bother responding to. Even the Bible teaches there is a time to speak (including a time to reprove the speech of a foolish one) and a time not to do so (including a time to not reprove the speech of a foolish one). I've already been logged in steady on this site and making posts for four hours today and soon I should log off and do something else.

I also notice that a number of Christians (including yourself) have not answered many of the questions I posed to evangelical Christians about four hours ago (in the post which begins with the phrase of "Vanderhoven7 and other evangelical Christian ...).

162

A new generation of anointed that will not pass away.

by Fisherman in

obviously, the older “ anointed ” from 1914 died.

and because they were anointed, they hopefully went to heaven.

in the first century though, a newer generation did not replace the old.

Disillusioned JW

Vanderhoven7, in response to your question of "why don't you start your own thread on the wonders of naturalism instead of following Christians around and hijacking other people's threads just to discuss what you want to discuss" I say the following.

First off, I don't think of myself as hijacking any threads. I think of myself as making relevant comments in the threads.

Why do many Christians evangelize to non-Christians? Why do many Christians (even ones under the age of 12 - even ones who have not yet become baptized and thus are not yet officially Christians) walk up to strangers and offer Christian tracts and/or other Christian literature to them? Why have many JWs, Mormons, and other Christians gone house to house to evangelize to those not of their faith? Why did the apostle Paul go evangelizing to Jews and gentiles who did not already share his views about Christ?

I go to one of the places where the people are who don't accept naturalism as true. A few times I even went door-to-door in my neighborhood to promote atheism. I also few times had atheistic literature on display in public places and one time I gave a speech on the subject of the Bible not being God's word. I gave that speech (about 45 minutes long) outside in front of local library. I gave that speech about a month before I considered myself an atheist (though I had already stopped believing in God and the supernatural and thus considered myself a nontheist and a naturalist, though at the time I wasn't sure no deistic god exists).

Furthermore, I have created topic threads on this site about naturalism (including at least one thread about evidence of biological evolution). But several months ago the creator and moderator of this site placed a block on my account from me creating new topic threads on this site. As a result, on this site I can only post in already existing topic threads and there are few new topic threads on this site promoting naturalism.

162

A new generation of anointed that will not pass away.

by Fisherman in

obviously, the older “ anointed ” from 1914 died.

and because they were anointed, they hopefully went to heaven.

in the first century though, a newer generation did not replace the old.

Disillusioned JW

Sea Breeze, I noticed a moment ago that you asked the following two questions to me. "Why do you yearn for others to join you in naturalism? What would this do for you if they did?" The answer is as follows.

In posts in other topic threads I have stated my reasons. In this post I rephrase them as follows.

I highly value truth and I despise superstition. I especially despise superstitions of the kind which are extremely prevalent in human society which are also heavily promoted in human society in my country (the USA). Some of these superstitions have been used as a foundation for the promotion of certain executive government policies and certain governmental legislation, and of the selection of certain people to the USA Supreme Court. I consider some of those actions (which used some Christian teachings as a basis) as very harmful to humans, and in some cases, also to the ecology of the planet.

Even when Christianity is not used as a basis for governmental actions, the acting on the basis of certain Christian ideas has done much harm. I and others were harmed intellectually and in other ways by the JW religion (and by certain statements in the Bible which I used to consider to be true). Many other former Christians were harmed by other types of Christianity. Many people who never were Christians were harmed (and many even were executed for not being Christians), by certain Christian ideas being put into practice. Some of the arguments against taking action against climate change (and not taking global warming seriously) are based by some teachings of Christianity (such the idea that the NT says God will burn up the Earth anyways, and very soon).

I want humanity to flourish. I believe that belief in supernaturalism, including belief in a personal God (including YHWH and Christ), is hindering human progress and hindering human flourishing. I believe that Roman Catholic Christianity greatly hindered human technological progress during the Middle Ages for about 1,000 years.

I believe that some Christian (and some non-Christian Jewish) teachings teach that women are second-rate humans and I believe that is both false and that it is harmful to human females.

I guess that my motivation for trying to persuade people to abandon Christianity and theism is much the same as that which motivated Thomas Paine to write The Age of Reason (during his life the first two volumes of it were published and later a book claiming to be the third volume was also published).

I could write more on this topic but I think the above is sufficient.

162

A new generation of anointed that will not pass away.

by Fisherman in

obviously, the older “ anointed ” from 1914 died.

and because they were anointed, they hopefully went to heaven.

in the first century though, a newer generation did not replace the old.

Disillusioned JW

Correction: Where i wrote "In the future I might also become an attribute of some human-made artificially intelligent computerized robots" I meant to write 'In the future it might also become an attribute of some human-made artificially intelligent computerized robots".