|
|
Post by Isapop on Nov 1, 2017 12:07:39 GMT
looking4klingons said: you know, I think it will, when they see their dead loved ones coming back to life! I know my Dad, although he was an agnostic....when he himself comes back to life and is reunited with his Mother and aunts and uncles, he will be moved to appreciate it!
So, tas, you have a new name, "looking4klingons". That's a lot longer to type than "tas", so I hope you won't mind if I go with "l4k" in the future. (Note for the uninitiated: l4k, formerly known as tas, is an elder with Jehovah's Witnesses, so if you're ever unsure of his theological views, just consult the Watchtower for clarification.)
Now regarding the topic: since, as the WT says, these are the "last days", there'll be an awful lot of people resurrected (maybe like me, I ain't so young) who will come back to life to learn that their children and grandchildren (who didn't embrace WT teachings) are gone, consigned to permanent destruction by Jehovah - and all because, for some reason, He couldn't establish His rule on earth unless it included their (and billions more) everlasting deaths. How will they "be moved to appreciate it"?
|
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Nov 1, 2017 12:28:18 GMT
This doesn't even address the question: Why bother distributing the Bible, if God can judge a man's heart regardless of whether or not he has been exposed to it? Well.... For the same reason that if it were the other way around - and God just judged us for what He knew we'd do before we actually did it - you probably wouldn't shut the fuck up about how that seemed unfair to you, either. How'z about you don't tell us about how Christianity actually works.... You seem kinda jaded when it comes to the subject. "Hey, Hitler, describe those Jews one more time for me... You seem to know them oh so well" 
|
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Nov 1, 2017 12:29:06 GMT
looking4klingons said: you know, I think it will, when they see their dead loved ones coming back to life! I know my Dad, although he was an agnostic....when he himself comes back to life and is reunited with his Mother and aunts and uncles, he will be moved to appreciate it!
So, tas, you have a new name, "looking4klingons". That's a lot longer to type than "tas", so I hope you won't mind if I go with "l4k" in the future. (Note for the uninitiated: l4k, formerly known as tas, is an elder with Jehovah's Witnesses, so if you're ever unsure of his theological views, just consult the Watchtower for clarification.)
Now regarding the topic: since, as the WT says, these are the "last days", there'll be an awful lot of people resurrected (maybe like me, I ain't so young) who will come back to life to learn that their children and grandchildren (who didn't embrace WT teachings) are gone, consigned to permanent destruction by Jehovah - and all because, for some reason, He couldn't establish His rule on earth unless it included their (and billions more) everlasting deaths. How will they "be moved to appreciate it"?
Of course he could establish a kingdom that involved no choice. Who said he couldn't? The question is why would he? Like everybody that has thinking ability, we only prefer people we like and, more importantly,people whom like us back. We will protect those people over people who don;t like. I imagine you would side with a fellow theophobia over tas any day of the week and this is no different except for you don't have the power to change anything for the better. None of us do obviously. Now I happen to think that most people won't make it because people will always people and only the cream of the crop, the people who actually love God and want to do his will, are going to make it as it should be. There can be no paradise when there are a bunch of whining wicked people running around unless God lobotomizes them, but again, why bother with that? |
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Nov 1, 2017 12:45:39 GMT
More to the point is why God did not appear as(or send) Jesus straightway in the Garden of Eden to carefully make up for those early errors most efficiently, rather than waiting all of those thousands of years to potter around a small area of the middle east when Mankind by that time had spread all over the globe. I'm sure that this question has already been answered by someone who knows better than me, but.. 1) There were other issues involved in the Garden Of Eden: Does Man know better than God? Is he better off without Him?, etc...... God is - according to the story - allowing time for those issues to be resolved/answered. 2) How would that work exactly?... So Jesus would be born to Eve... He'd spend the next 1,000 years repeating "Mom.. Dad... You have to kill me for this thing to work...It's a sacrifice.. Kill me".. and they'd be like "Jesus.. We love you.. We're not gonna kill you." Eventually, Adam and Eve have other kids... and Jesus would still be like "Brothers.. Sisters. Kill me.. You know you want to... Cain? CAIN! You look like a killer... Kill me!!" Soon, Jesus would just be that crazy uncle that wants everybody to kill him. That would just be sad.  |
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Nov 1, 2017 12:53:53 GMT
More to the point is why God did not appear as(or send) Jesus straightway in the Garden of Eden to carefully make up for those early errors most efficiently, rather than waiting all of those thousands of years to potter around a small area of the middle east when Mankind by that time had spread all over the globe. I'm sure that this question has already been answered by someone who knows better than me, but.. 1) There were other issues involved in the Garden Of Eden: Does Man know better than God? Is he better off without Him?, etc...... God is - according to the story - allowing time for those issues to be resolved/answered. This implies that other things are more immediately important than saving souls and bringing people to God. I'm happy to accept that if a Christian says so, since it is their faith not mine. But, just sayin'. Well I was more wondering that, if God put up with a serpent in the Garden then He could just have easily placed his own representative there (or a third of Himself in person, according to which doctrine one prefers) to even out the conversation. It would certainly have saved the prospect of a human sacrifice later. It is no big deal since the story is just an allegory anyway and the original authors of Genesis probably didn't expect their primitive audience to question internal logic so closely. |
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Nov 1, 2017 14:04:12 GMT
@eddyhops I'm saying that time to make an informed choice matters in relation to that choice. The premise becomes more ridiculous the more immediate the choice becomes which would add weight to your argument. However, your argument becomes moot if someone is given the time to make an informed choice. Except that it wouldn't. It has never worked whether we are talking about within the confines of Scripture or within our modern day existence. People do what they wish to do since most people are convinced that their way of doing things is either the correct way or the way that works best for them. Perception is reality. This is the part you don't get about faith. It's not just belief. There is no opt-in for it. You either want to agree to the conditions, all of them, or you don't. One of those conditions is loving God. I couldn't love God if he tortured people for all eternity...Although I would try to fake it. It is irrelevant that God tosses you manna from heaven if the miracle doesn't move you to appreciate it. Maybe resurrections would move people to that appreciation but there is no evidence whatsoever that would be automatic or a foregone conclusion. Very informative. Cooljgs, you said: “Maybe resurrections would move people to that appreciation but there is no evidence whatsoever that would be automatic or a foregone conclusion.” you know, I think it will, when they see their dead loved ones coming back to life! I know my Dad, although he was an agnostic....when he himself comes back to life and is reunited with his Mother and aunts and uncles, he will be moved to appreciate it! You could always reason with him, to a point. Well, I'm not nearly as comfortable with the notion of what is involved in the resurrection.
However, billions of people who ever lived never had the context to even determine their beliefs in relation to Judaism, which wasn't a proselytizing religion anyway since it was nation based, or Christianity, which is relatively new in comparison the amount of time humans have been around.
In short, I don't think most people will adjust well and Revelation seems to bear that out.
|
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Nov 1, 2017 14:10:38 GMT
I'm sure that this question has already been answered by someone who knows better than me, but.. 1) There were other issues involved in the Garden Of Eden: Does Man know better than God? Is he better off without Him?, etc...... God is - according to the story - allowing time for those issues to be resolved/answered. This implies that other things are more immediately important than saving souls and bringing people to God. I'm happy to accept that if a Christian says so, since it is their faith not mine. But, just sayin'. Well I was more wondering that, if God put up with a serpent in the Garden then He could just have easily placed his own representative there (or a third of Himself in person, according to which doctrine one prefers) to even out the conversation. It would certainly have saved the prospect of a human sacrifice later. It is no big deal since the story is just an allegory anyway and the original authors of Genesis probably didn't expect their primitive audience to question internal logic so closely. I still cannot understand this automatic need to think that God controls everything without choice.
The circumstances were already laid out without any need for a representative to rectify the situation. The representative didn't even out the situation for mankind
What evened out the situation was not rewarding sin with eternal life.
However, since everyone whines about that not being fair, a completely unnecessary gift to us was present by Jesus' willing sacrifice.
|
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Nov 1, 2017 14:18:24 GMT
This implies that other things are more immediately important than saving souls and bringing people to God. I'm happy to accept that if a Christian says so, since it is their faith not mine. But, just sayin'. Well I was more wondering that, if God put up with a serpent in the Garden then He could just have easily placed his own representative there (or a third of Himself in person, according to which doctrine one prefers) to even out the conversation. It would certainly have saved the prospect of a human sacrifice later. It is no big deal since the story is just an allegory anyway and the original authors of Genesis probably didn't expect their primitive audience to question internal logic so closely. I still cannot understand this automatic need to think that God controls everything without choice. Both Jesus and the serpent in Eden would not have invalidated choice, if this is what you suggest. That's because the representative suggested (i.e. JC appearing much earlier) was not there. Also I am not doubting that things were 'laid out'. I was speculating what would have happened if they were 'laid out' more efficiently. I think you miss the point of the speculation. Just not when (as one might argue, given it took a necessary human sacrifice thousands of years later) it would have been more efficient though lol. But as I said already I don't think the authors of Genesis would have thought about this when compiling their myth, it was enough to just put down a creation story that suited for early uneducated audiences. |
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Nov 1, 2017 14:23:19 GMT
If I am expected to put my faith in Jesus, what was Julius Caesar expected to do? How could he put his faith into someone who had not been born? "Jesus died for our sins". Who died for the sins of Tutankhamun (b. bc circa 1341) When Cleopatra was trying to pick our her wardrobe for the day, did she ask her lady-in-waiting, "What would Jesus do?" If Jesus is our Lord and Savior, who was the Lord and Savior 3000 years ago? Were those people just screwed? To put it bluntly: Why do Christians get all the benefits of Jesus while those who died before he was born did not? I would assume God would judge them by a different standard. Who said God judges? God is not what you think he is. |
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Nov 1, 2017 14:24:32 GMT
looking4klingons said: you know, I think it will, when they see their dead loved ones coming back to life! I know my Dad, although he was an agnostic....when he himself comes back to life and is reunited with his Mother and aunts and uncles, he will be moved to appreciate it!
So, tas, you have a new name, "looking4klingons". That's a lot longer to type than "tas", so I hope you won't mind if I go with "l4k" in the future. (Note for the uninitiated: l4k, formerly known as tas, is an elder with Jehovah's Witnesses, so if you're ever unsure of his theological views, just consult the Watchtower for clarification.)
Now regarding the topic: since, as the WT says, these are the "last days", there'll be an awful lot of people resurrected (maybe like me, I ain't so young) who will come back to life to learn that their children and grandchildren (who didn't embrace WT teachings) are gone, consigned to permanent destruction by Jehovah - and all because, for some reason, He couldn't establish His rule on earth unless it included their (and billions more) everlasting deaths. How will they "be moved to appreciate it"?
Of course he could establish a kingdom that involved no choice. Who said he couldn't? The question is why would he? Like everybody that has thinking ability, we only prefer people we like and, more importantly,people whom like us back. We will protect those people over people who don;t like. I imagine you would side with a fellow theophobia over tas any day of the week and this is no different except for you don't have the power to change anything for the better. None of us do obviously. Now I happen to think that most people won't make it because people will always people and only the cream of the crop, the people who actually love God and want to do his will, are going to make it as it should be. There can be no paradise when there are a bunch of whining wicked people running around unless God Coo CoolJgs said: "Who said he couldn't? The question is why would he?"
So, why would God handle this differently from the way the Watchtower says he will? Two reasons: 1) The simple fairness of giving the billions of average people alive when "the end" comes the same choice that He is apparently giving billions of average people who die some time before "the end" comes - the choice to be part of what they see with their own eyes, a new world established by God.
and 2) Speaking directly to my point, so that about a billion resurrected people don't have to wake up in world where they're told that God needlessly destroyed their children and grandchildren when establishing His world ("Them? Oh, God killed them. Have a nice paradise!")
|
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Nov 1, 2017 14:25:41 GMT
They weren't sinners or heathens before Jesus, because there was no Jesus to reject.
|
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Nov 1, 2017 14:41:55 GMT
They weren't sinners or heathens before Jesus, because there was no Jesus to reject. There have always been sinners where a standard has been broken. |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Nov 1, 2017 14:53:07 GMT
I still cannot understand this automatic need to think that God controls everything without choice.
The circumstances were already laid out without any need for a representative to rectify the situation. The representative didn't even out the situation for mankind
What evened out the situation was not rewarding sin with eternal life.
However, since everyone whines about that not being fair, a completely unnecessary gift to us was present by Jesus' willing sacrifice.
Like a kid with an ant farm and a magnifying class. That bred the ants to have certain traits and be certain ways that the kid then roasts them for. Jesus's "sacrifice" was a gruesome sadistic (masochistic?) spectacle of Munchausen syndrome by proxy.
And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt. |
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Nov 1, 2017 16:50:48 GMT
FilmFlaneurI'm not saying that. I'm saying Jesus was never needed in the first place in Eden. God telling you not to do something is more than sufficient since he is Jesus' superior. The option and terms were manifested way before Satan entered the picture. They could have just as easily eaten the fruit without the serpent in the picture. In fact, Adam didn't eat the fruit due to the serpent. He was never tricked. I'm not sure why you don't think God could represent himself. After all, that's what he was doing. I have no idea what you're talking about regarding the suggestion. Are you discussing the after they ate? If so, I'm not sure why Jesus popping up would have anything to do with it. This was not a debate. God said what they could do (Just about anything) and what they could not do (Don't eat from the tree or you're going to die). That was the representation and it was perfectly done. Very clear, very concise. I think I understand it enough to not bother speculating on things already known. This is based on your interpretation of efficiency which is irrelevant. I speculate that most of the people that would gain benefit from Jesus' sacrifice have plenty of time to contemplate it's significance and God has no concern for time constraints in the first place as long as something can be done correctly rather than quickly.
|
|
|
|
Post by Karl Aksel on Nov 1, 2017 20:38:41 GMT
Well.... For the same reason that if it were the other way around - and God just judged us for what He knew we'd do before we actually did it - you probably wouldn't shut the fuck up about how that seemed unfair to you, either. No, that doesn't address the question either. Studied, you mean. Now explain how that is supposed to be even remotely analogous to the observation that Christian values have demonstrably changed with time and place throughout history, and has never remained constant. |
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Nov 1, 2017 22:31:59 GMT
They weren't sinners or heathens before Jesus, because there was no Jesus to reject. There have always been sinners where a standard has been broken. Who's standard and why is it considered a sin? Only chruchie's consider things sins, and not everyone believes in Christianity, or biblical based religions. Why should they? Religion has been the scourge of much suffering on this planet. |
|
|
|
Post by Rodney Farber on Nov 1, 2017 23:03:33 GMT
If I am expected to put my faith in Jesus, what was Julius Caesar expected to do? How could he put his faith into someone who had not been born? "Jesus died for our sins". Who died for the sins of Tutankhamun (b. bc circa 1341) When Cleopatra was trying to pick our her wardrobe for the day, did she ask her lady-in-waiting, "What would Jesus do?" If Jesus is our Lord and Savior, who was the Lord and Savior 3000 years ago? Were those people just screwed? To put it bluntly: Why do Christians get all the benefits of Jesus while those who died before he was born did not? I would assume God would judge them by a different standard. That is twisted rationalization. What you are saying is that God changed when Jesus came along. If God is perfect, then (s)he doesn't change. This means that God's standards would not change. Why should Helen of Troy be judged by a different standard than Martha Washington? |
|
|
|
Post by Rodney Farber on Nov 1, 2017 23:12:26 GMT
If I am expected to put my faith in Jesus, what was Julius Caesar expected to do? How could he put his faith into someone who had not been born? "Jesus died for our sins". Who died for the sins of Tutankhamun (b. bc circa 1341) When Cleopatra was trying to pick our her wardrobe for the day, did she ask her lady-in-waiting, "What would Jesus do?" If Jesus is our Lord and Savior, who was the Lord and Savior 3000 years ago? Were those people just screwed? To put it bluntly: Why do Christians get all the benefits of Jesus while those who died before he was born did not? Everyone gets the benefit - past, present, & future. If Tutankhamun got the benefit of Jesus without praying to Jesus, will I get the same treatment if I do not pray to him? Tutankhamun didn't pray to Jesus; why should I bother? |
|
|
|
Post by kls on Nov 1, 2017 23:30:04 GMT
I would assume God would judge them by a different standard. That is twisted rationalization. What you are saying is that God changed when Jesus came along. If God is perfect, then (s)he doesn't change. This means that God's standards would not change. Why should Helen of Troy be judged by a different standard than Martha Washington? How could God require belief in Jesus if He hadn't appeared on Earth yet?  |
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Nov 1, 2017 23:39:13 GMT
Everyone gets the benefit - past, present, & future. If Tutankhamun got the benefit of Jesus without praying to Jesus, will I get the same treatment if I do not pray to him? Tutankhamun didn't pray to Jesus; why should I bother? What do you think the benefit is? |
|
