JW organization.

[Elijah John]

Jehovah's Witnesses are not allowed to:

-vote
-celebrate birthdays
-celebrate Christmas or Easter
-donate or receive blood transfusions.

And if any JW openly persists in doing these things[edit to add publicly], they will be shunned or disfellowshipped, [edit to add or otherwise admonished or disciplined.]

For debate,

1) what do any of these check-list prohibitions have to do with Christianity?

2) And are any of these prohibitions compatible with the idea of Christian freedom?

3) Are these prohibitions arbitrary or legalistic?

4) And could Jehvoah's Witness as an organization flourish without these particular prohibitions and still honor God?

Please address any or all of the above.

[Elijah John]

Cain knew he had transgressed Gods' law, or he wouldn't have been so rebellious and defensive in his response to God.

You seem to be saying that the Law was given before the Sinai event. Perhaps, but where? When?

Where in Genesis was the Law given? It wasn't, except for that one taboo which his parents violated, Cain had no Law to violate. But still, Cain violated the principle of right and wrong. He violated God's will and commited sin by murder.

So Paul's assertion that "without the Law, there is no sin" seems erroneous. Cain sinned, long before the Law was given..

[shnarkle]

You seem to be saying that the Law was given before the Sinai event. Perhaps, but where? When?

No, what I'm saying is that God's will is synonymous with his law. And God's will is eternal. Love is eternal while disobedience came much later after creation.

Cain violated the principle of right and wrong. He violated God's will and commited sin by murder.

There is no essential or effective difference between the princiaple that states do not murder and the law that states "do not murder".

So Paul's assertion that "without the Law, there is no sin" seems erroneous. Cain sinned, long before the Law was given..

You're contradicting yourself. Paul isn't saying that there was no law. His argument is pointing out that one can't sin without the law, and the fact is that the definition of sin is the transgression of the law. The law had to exist prior to sin, or no one would be able to sin in the first place.

Cain sinned long before the law was codified on tables of stone. That doesn't mean the law didn't exist prior to being codified. It was given to them because they had just spend over 400 years in bondage to sin. They were living in a state of perpetual transgression against God's law. They no longer even know what's right or wrong anymore. That's what bondage does to people so they have to be reintroduced to God's will. This can't be done until they are freed from the bondage of sin.

You rightly point out that Cain sinned, but Cain can't sin wihtout a law to transgress. In his case he transgressed the law against murder. Cain didn't need a codified table informing him that is was wrong to murder. He knew it was wrong while he was plotting murder.

By the same token when Moses comes down from Mt. Sinai, and breaks the tables this doesn't then mean that murder is now acceptable or condoned. It just isn't codified.

This is one of the great misunderstandings propagated by mainstream Christianity as well as the JW organization. They think there is some significant difference between the codified law and the principle of the law. However, they also fail to articulate what this significant difference is, or it is so subtle as to be of no real significance.

God's commandments cannot be broken. They can only break those who think to break them.

[ttruscott]

One, He is God. He knew we would forget and break His instructions if left to our own devices.

Indeed YHWH is GOD. But if HIS being all knowing includes knowing the details of the fall then HE would have also known who would end in hell, the serpent and all, but created them to eternal suffering anyway, a pagan blasphemy accepted into the church by those who idolised Greek wisdom.

Acts 15:18 tell us that HE knows all HIS works of creation which implies that if HE did not create something HE did not know it. I understand this to mean that if HE did not create the results of our true free will decisions then HE did not know those results until we made them real by choosing them.

I reject most wholeheartedly that the GOD who is LOVE would ever create a person knowing that their creation would end in them going to hell since it contradicts scripture: 1 Timothy 2:4 ...who wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. does not seem to imply HE created them just to be damned.

Ezekiel 18:32 For I take no pleasure in anyone's death, declares the Lord GOD. yet we know Ephesians 1:9 ...having made known unto us the mystery of his will according to his good pleasure, which he hath purposed in himself. IF HE wanted no one to be in hell then all HE had to do to keep hell empty was to not create those HE knew would end there OR HE did not know who would end there and takes no pleasure in their damnation being necessary.

2, the law is given for our benefit. As following it makes us good people, worthy of God's presence .

Our = sinners. The main benefit of the law is to convict us of sin.

As has been stated earlier, if the culprits(Adam, Eve, Cain), thought they did no wrong, why did they hide and evade?

Just like Rom 3:20 and 1 Tim 1:18 said; they responded to having their eyes opened to their sinfulness with feelings of guilt and fear but before their eyes were opened they were not ashamed. Note that when their eyes were so opened they saw their nakedness, not their eating as sinful...

[ttruscott]

Paul isn't saying that there was no law. His argument is pointing out that one can't sin without the law, and the fact is that the definition of sin is the transgression of the law. The law had to exist prior to sin, or no one would be able to sin in the first place.

I am intrigued by this topic...

Rom 5:13 For until the Law, sin was in the world; but sin is not imputed, there being no law. can be read "For until the Law, sin was in the world; but sin is not imputed by GOD to men, there being no law."
OR
"For until the Law, sin was in the world; but sin is not imputed by men to other men, there being no law."

We know GOD imputes sin even in the absence of law because as is written in the next verse all men died even when no imputation of sin was made and, as the wages for sin, only sinners who have had sin imputed to them die. No holy angel dies; only sinners die so death proves the imputation of sin. This would indicate that it is men who do not impute sin to each other when there is no religious law.

Also if the first law was given to Adam or Moses, what was the war in heaven all about? How did Satan get to be such a radical sinner? Sin was imputed to him before the creation of the physical universe...long before the first law on earth.

[shnarkle]

"For until the Law, sin was in the world; but sin is not imputed by GOD to men, there being no law."

This doesn't work because we have the flood and the destruction of Sodom as clearly showing that their sin was definitely imputed to them by God.

OR
"For until the Law, sin was in the world; but sin is not imputed by men to other men, there being no law."

Lot also knows the people of Sodom are sinful.

We know GOD imputes sin even in the absence of law because as is written in the next verse all men died even when no imputation of sin was made

But he admits Adam sinned, he also points out that Adam's sin carried a death sentence even though they didn't sin in like manner. Nevertheless, they still sinned. They couldn't commit Adam's sin because they weren't walking with God to begin with. They couldn't be kicked out of the garden when they were never there.

it is men who do not impute sin to each other when there is no religious law.

Men do impute sin to each other. We have one example after another in Genesis. Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob all practice deceit and are called on it by Pharaoh, their neighbors, etc. They have territorial disputes which require skirmishes, battles, and migrations to prevent further transgressions.

Also if the first law was given to Adam or Moses, what was the war in heaven all about? How did Satan get to be such a radical sinner? Sin was imputed to him before the creation of the physical universe...long before the first law on earth.

It seems like you're saying that the law didn't exist prior to Adam or Moses. The text looks like it's simply saying that when Adam transgressed God's law, sin entered into the world. Satan got to be a sinner the same way Adam did, by transgressing God's law. I think I see where you might be going with this in that if sin entered the world with Adam, then how could it have entered prior to Adam's sin? I think the answer lies in Isaiah 45:18 where we read that God did not create the world "in vain" or Heb. "tohu" i.e. formless. This is the same word used in Genesis 1 where we see that the world was "tohu va bohu" i.e "without form". Obviously the earth can't be created without form therefore it became formless, i.e. it was destroyed. Peter refers to this in 2 Peter. 3:6 as well. So it enters in and God destroys it, then it enters in again through Adam. Then he destroys it with a flood, then again with fiery brimstone. We all die because of sin, but when there's a huge outbreak of sin, there is commensurate level of death as well.

[ttruscott]

"For until the Law, sin was in the world; but sin is not imputed by GOD to men, there being no law."

This doesn't work because we have the flood and the destruction of Sodom as clearly showing that their sin was definitely imputed to them by God.

Yes, what I said without the detail...

OR
"For until the Law, sin was in the world; but sin is not imputed by men to other men, there being no law."

Lot also knows the people of Sodom are sinful.

So did Noah I bet...

Men do impute sin to each other. We have one example after another in Genesis. Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob all practice deceit and are called on it by Pharaoh, their neighbors, etc. They have territorial disputes which require skirmishes, battles, and migrations to prevent further transgressions.

True, but not by YHWH's law....?

Also if the first law was given to Adam or Moses, what was the war in heaven all about? How did Satan get to be such a radical sinner? Sin was imputed to him before the creation of the physical universe...long before the first law on earth.

It seems like you're saying that the law didn't exist prior to Adam or Moses.

No, I thought you suggested that and this is my Socratic question...

The text looks like it's simply saying that when Adam transgressed God's law, sin entered into the world. Satan got to be a sinner the same way Adam did, by transgressing God's law. I think I see where you might be going with this in that if sin entered the world with Adam, then how could it have entered prior to Adam's sin? I think the answer lies in Isaiah 45:18 where we read that God did not create the world "in vain" or Heb. "tohu" i.e. formless. This is the same word used in Genesis 1 where we see that the world was "tohu va bohu" i.e "without form". Obviously the earth can't be created without form therefore it became formless, i.e. it was destroyed. Peter refers to this in 2 Peter. 3:6 as well. So it enters in and God destroys it, then it enters in again through Adam. Then he destroys it with a flood, then again with fiery brimstone. We all die because of sin, but when there's a huge outbreak of sin, there is commensurate level of death as well.

Ahhh the two earth theory. I got no problem with that except that it is unnecessary to my theology so I hold my opinion about it in abeyance till the LORD provides.

But at face value the Book says the serpent arrived with evil in his heart and enticed the woman and she sinned when she ate if not earlier when she was discussing life an death with her GOD's worst enemy making Adam the third to sin in the garden yet sin entered the world with him so I take this as a clandestine, ie concealed, hint that he was a sinner at the time he was sown Matt 13:36-39, breathed, into the world, so that as the first inhabitant of the world, he brought sin into it.

[shnarkle]

One, He is God. He knew we would forget and break His instructions if left to our own devices.

Indeed YHWH is GOD. But if HIS being all knowing includes knowing the details of the fall then HE would have also known who would end in hell, the serpent and all, but created them to eternal suffering anyway, a pagan blasphemy accepted into the church by those who idolised Greek wisdom.

God sees the end from the beginning, therefore he knows the outcome already. It isn't that he desires the outcome, but we tend to think that our free will decision negates God's omniscience; it doesn't. Just because God knows that some will choose death over life, doesn't mean that he wills it.

Acts 15:18 tell us that HE knows all HIS works of creation which implies that if HE did not create something HE did not know it. I understand this to mean that if HE did not create the results of our true free will decisions then HE did not know those results until we made them real by choosing them.

And interesting idea, but one that requires God to be considerably less than omniscient. Paul's doctrine of election informs that God predestined what he foreknew which some interpret to mean that God willed what he foreknew, but what is predestined is only to guaranteed God's foreknowledge. Paul sees that if what God foreknew wasn't predestined, then God couldn't foreknow anything. it's just a simple logical argument.

I reject most wholeheartedly that the GOD who is LOVE would ever create a person knowing that their creation would end in them going to hell since it contradicts scripture: 1 Timothy 2:4 ...who wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. does not seem to imply HE created them just to be damned.

Knowing that some will reject God's will doesn't mean that God creates them just to be damned. It's like the parable of the sower, God sows wastefully, it's part of his nature which is why we see all these references to overflowing water, abundance, bumper crops etc.

Ezekiel 18:32 For I take no pleasure in anyone's death, declares the Lord GOD.

It doesn't make sense for him to say that he takes no pleasure in something that will never happen. Obviously God has to take no pleasure in these things that will happen.

IF HE wanted no one to be in hell then all HE had to do to keep hell empty was to not create those HE knew would end there

Or he could just not create hell, which would instantly negate our free will. Your idea is effectively the same thing.

OR HE did not know who would end there and takes no pleasure in their damnation being necessary.

I think that's what he's saying.

As has been stated earlier, if the culprits(Adam, Eve, Cain), thought they did no wrong, why did they hide and evade?

Just like Rom 3:20 and 1 Tim 1:18 said; they responded to having their eyes opened to their sinfulness with feelings of guilt and fear but before their eyes were opened they were not ashamed. Note that when their eyes were so opened they saw their nakedness, not their eating as sinful...[/quote]

I'm not sure what you're point is here. When someone is overwhelmed by temptation, they succumb to sin and only realize their shame afterwards, e.g. murder, adultery, etc. They don't want to think about the sin itself, but they can't ignore the effect which has changed them forever. After Adam and Eve sin, they are aware of their nakedness before God. It's showing us how we're able to compartmentalize sin when we know what we're doing is wrong. We think we're hiding it well enough until we're left to deal with the aftermath. It makes us stupid. Adam and Eve are a prime example of our feeble attempts to hide what can't be hidden.

Their eyes weren't opened to their sin prior to sinning either. There's no reason for them to be ashamed prior to sinning.

[shnarkle]

Men do impute sin to each other. We have one example after another in Genesis. Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob all practice deceit and are called on it by Pharaoh, their neighbors, etc. They have territorial disputes which require skirmishes, battles, and migrations to prevent further transgressions.

True, but not by YHWH's law....?

Yes, by YHWH's law. Paul points out that there is God's law and "the law that was added because of transgressions". The law that was added was the law of sacrifice. Adam, Abel, Seth, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, etc. all sacrificed. They couldn't have sacrificed if there was no transgression to warrant a sacrifice.

It seems like you're saying that the law didn't exist prior to Adam or Moses.

No, I thought you suggested that and this is my Socratic question...

My only point was that it wasn't codified until Moses brought it down from Mt. Sinai. They're in bondage to sin and God decides that they've had enough so he sets them free to walk in his commandments. It forms the lower jaw of the chiasma in the Torah. There's Adam walking with God in enlightened obedience followed by transgression of his command which sends him and his posterity into bondage. God also gives them the sacrificial system which points to their redemption, but when they've been in Egypt a short while they forget everything. They're immersed in sin. They worship pagan gods, they've forgotten God's Sabbaths etc. So they're freed from sin by God and reminded of his commandments which when observed by faith lead to salvation in the Promised land.

So it looks like this:

Paradise

……...God's law transgressed

...………….exile into bondage

……………. freed from bondage

……….God's law kept

Entry into the Promised land

It also seems to me that Adam is walking with God and being taught of God which means that Adam and Eve have God's laws written on their hearts. By transgressing God's law, they're going to know only too well what is right and what is wrong especially in their fallen position. They really don't need God to write it down for them.

the Book says the serpent arrived with evil in his heart and enticed the woman and she sinned when she ate if not earlier when she was discussing life an death with her GOD's worst enemy making Adam the third to sin in the garden yet sin entered the world with him so I take this as a clandestine, ie concealed, hint that he was a sinner at the time he was sown Matt 13:36-39, breathed, into the world, so that as the first inhabitant of the world, he brought sin into it.

I see what you're saying in that it agrees with Jesus's point that one becomes a sinner when they conceive it in their heart. Saying he sinned before he sinned doesn't seem to make any difference that I can see other than to add some inconsequential twist to the story.

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 557 by shnarkle]

OK, if they are synonomous, is the will of God good and life affirming unto itself? Or does it only (or pimarily) exist to demonstrate "our need for a Savior"?

Are people "under a curse" if they embrace the will of God and attempt to abide by it? To embrace His will from the heart as a way of life?

After all, didn't Jesus himself describe the way of salvation, (that leads to life) as a path or a road?

Where did Jesus ever describe the Law as a "curse"? Meant primarily to demonstrate our need for a Savior?

[ttruscott]

God sees the end from the beginning, therefore he knows the outcome already.

Sure, but the end of what and the beginning of what?

I claim that we choose our eternal fates in our relationship with HIM then HE chose our, ie the sinful elect, predestined lives to end in heaven married to HIM from before the foundation of the world.

HE certainly knows the outcome s of HIS divine decrees of our predetermined lives but that still does not seem to apply to our free will decision to be within HIS family or as HIS eternal enemy.

If you are suggesting that HE saw the fate of the end of some in hell YET CREATED THEM ANYWAY, we must accept that I part company with this doctrine, sigh.