Here’s a link I found a while back (had to go looking for it again) that, while does not address the OP directly in reguards to The Restoration and JW dogma, does provide insight into a wider point of view within the topic of salvation for those who have not had the opportunity to hear about Christ.
Those who have had the opportunity and rejected it are still SOL I’m afraid.
And until you can acutally show them to be something other than rationalizations, that’s all they’ll be.
Well, that’s certainly a relief. Even Don Corleone didn’t have people garrotted before giving them their unrefusable offer.
That was Fredo, its why he didn’t make the cut. Sonny, he just started straight in beating the living snot out of them until they gurgled something which he would assume was “Yes!” He was always right, of course, but still…
Found the cartoon- actually, it was Steve’s son & Opus.
http://www.cartoonistgroup.com/store/add.php?iid=15576
Yep, but it would be:
Ayúde a Larrry con las cajas.
You use the subjunctive tense (mood) for commands, “a Larry” indicates that he’s the guy to be helped, and “cajas” is a feminine noun.
*Ayuda *Larry con las cajas would mean Larry helps with the boxes, although it would be a bit awkward sounding (I believe, not being a native speaker).
Ahhh… I see… Thanks.
Most of my spanish has been assimilated from listening and mimicking, Ayude a Larry, when spoken at normal speed sounds more like Ayuda Larry. Most people understand but I do get quite a few funny looks sometimes.
I knew cajas was feminine, that’s where I run into the most trouble: most feminine nouns have a hole and most masculine nouns have a shaft, there are exceptions and proper nouns of course but this seems to be the case most of the time in my experience.
<End of spanish language hijack - Now back to the Restoration>
I think most of the masculine “-a” nouns in Spanish are those derived from Greek, like el problema.
FriarTed Would you like to include some scriptural support for that contention? You mention some aspects of when the JW shoehorn it in but I have never really seen such a reference in the Word.
Hello** FriarTed.**
The difficulty I envision in having a conversation about [variations on] The Restoration is that it is tightly woven into many other doctrines and/or [biblical] principles and texts. A person who believes, for example, that at death judgment is instantly rendered and a person is sent [in the blink of an eye] to heaven or hell would see this as impossible.
It seems clear to me that subjects like heaven and hell (and what they are), who inhabits them and when, the condition of the dead, the faith/works (read: love vs. behavior) paradigm, Armageddon and “judgment day”, Immortality, the Resurrection, the purpose of Christ’s death etc, all play a role in this and every single one of them could take many, many hours of research; and for the purpose of a message board each could take their own thread.
FriarTed correctly points out that, while the JWs are the largest and best known of groups born of Russell/ Barbour et al, there are others. While these various groups share much in common, there are differences, and the different groups do not share in anything akin to inter-faith.
It’s also worth noting that JWs, like virtually every other religion I know of, have had their faiths and doctrines change over time. What that means is that not every thing that the earliest believers followed are followed by JWs today; including [some amount of] Russell’s works. (Like Christmas as one example. JWs do not celebrate Christmas although 'The Bible Students" did)
So, JWs today may follow the principles of The Restoration, although there may be minor differenes and certainly the terminology is different, (the term “Restoration” is not used) JWs believe:
1) The Trinity
This is probably the least relevant to this discussion. JWs reject the Trinity, and see JC as what he said he was: The Son of God. Whether he was God or not, the “opportunity” for “Restoration” (as I said, a foreign word to JWs today) remains the same. **(Cites: Not particularly relevant to the discussion, and the cites easily number in the hundreds. Further it would be, by neccessity an exhaustive discussion) **
2) Hell
JWs see hell the way the OT, NT Jews and Christian Jews and Christian Gentiles did: The Grave. From Adam’s ‘death sentence’ ("…from dust you came, and dust you shall return…"), to the OT writings, to Job’s desire to go to hell, to Martha’s view of ‘the last day’ and the ‘memorial tombs’, to Jesus residing in hell (for 3 days anyway), to the apostles understanding of death, to Solomon’s understanding of death, to original rendering of Hades/Haides, Sheol/Sheohl, and Geheena/Gehenna, to the various ways it was rendered over 1000 years of English translations, to the “Lazarus” account, to the [literal and historical] Valley of Hinnom, even to Dante’s inferno, JWs see hell as the “place of the dead”, “grave” or “pit.” (Ps 9:17, Job 14:13, Acts 2:25-27, Rev 20:13,14, Matt 25:46, 2 Thess 1:9, and many others)
3) Death, and the Immortality of the Soul.
JWs see Death as the end result of being sinful. When you die, you are in the grave, dead, non-sentient and unaware. Humans “inherited” endemic sin from Adam and as a result of being sinners all humans will die. For many of the same reasons as intimated in the “Hell” section, JWs see death as being the cessation of life, nothing more. JWs find no compelling [thorough and contextual] case for the immortality of the human soul. Humans don’t have a soul, they are a [living] soul. That would be End Of Story if not for… (Gen 2:17, Ezek 18:31, Heb 9:27, Gen 3:1-9, 5:3-5, compare Deu 32:4 and Rev 12:9, Rom 5:12, 17,19 1 Cor 15:22, Rom 3:23, 6:23, Eccl 9:5, Gen 3:19, Ps 146:4, Jo 11:11-14, Ezek 18:4, Eccl 9:6, Isa 26:14, and others)
4) Christ’s "Ransom Sacrifice"
As JWs see it, Jehovah’s sense of justice----as evidenced and practiced by the formal worship of the Jews—required that sins be answered for, or “atoned” for. The Jews of the OT had a rich history of festivals and holy days where worship and sacrifices were made. The concept of sin atonement through [animal] sacrifice was well established. In the bible as whole, and Paul’s writings specifically, the notion that Adam “condemned” mankind to hopelessness and certain death is well established. Further, Christ is directly said to be answering for Adam’s sin. Only a perfect human life (Jesus) could serve as an adequate sacrifice for the perfect life of Adam. This is neither, infrequent, arcane or obscure in Paul’s writings. (where he refers to Jesus, among other things, as a “ransom sacrifice” for the sins of Adam; ransoming humans from the curse of Adamic sin)
5) The Resurrection
If everyone is whisked away to either [endless] bliss in heaven or [endless] torture in [a burning] hell at death, who needs a Resurrection? JWs believe a thorough consideration of the bible shows convincingly that humans die, and remain dead until a resurrection, wherein all humans are judged. JWs believe that you have [largely] “answered” for your sins at death—the wages of sin are death and death is the appropriate punishment. Yet the bible says that there will be a resurrection of both the righteous and the unrighteous—at which point some will be given [the potential for] everlasting life, or everlasting death; destruction.
(I am tight on time, and the cites take a fair amount of time, so forgive me for not citing the last 2 items. I will cite them, however, if asked)
In practical terms this means that JWs believe that when you die you’re dead. This death answers for your sins-----you sinned, you died as a result. Yet, because of Christ’s love and sacrifice you have a hope, a chance for salvation. (salvation not yet defined in this discussion)
This chance at redemption is manifested at your resurrection, where you are judged by God. This judgment is God’s and God’s alone. Certainly “Grace”, as manifested by his love play the greatest role. Yet…the bible itself has many things to say about behavior. Jesus himself was an agitator and firebrand and was harshly critical of those professed love on their lips and were duplicitous. He said in plain terms that upon his arrival there would be many he would reject because of their behavior. Yet it is also clear that a person can never earn their own salvation. But that’s not why people try! People conform their behavior to Christian principles out of love and regard for Jehovah and Jesus Christ and the appreciation that this life is superior to a life of selfishness.
And here you stand. You’ve passed away and now you’ve been resurrected from the grave you’ve called home. Your whole life is in front of you. God knows your history and life course in perfect recall. Your “salvation” is a function of Grace and Love. Your “resume” won’t get you entrance. But it would be folly to think your behavior, your choices, were/are meaningless. God sees it all—your hopes and dreams, your successes and failures, your realized and unrealized potential. He sees not just your [completed] life course (from which He, in part, judges) but your heart now; your current attitude.
He sees every extenuating circumstance, all through a filter of love. Were you “aware” but suffering from depression or something that blurred your vision? Were you never “introduced” to the true God? The fact is, there may be many reasons that a person didn’t come to a full understanding and appreciation of God. (and therefore live a life consistent with His requirements) So the opportunity to have a “do-over” (as we used to call it playing sandlot baseball) is open to some. That “some” is only known by Jehovah.
So whether that is at the “General Judgment” as FriarTed puts it, or as part of the Millenium, there is an opportunity for "redemption. "
(I would caution that “willful ignorance of the law” is no defense before the Judge. The bible makes it clear that “this good news of the kingdom will be preached in all the inhabited earth for a witness to all the nations and then the end will come.” The are ample texts that clearly show that sticking your head in the spiritual sand and remaining blissfully ignorant is not the situation envisioned in Russell’s “restoration.”
IIRC, it is, and it’s the magazine she subscribed to. I could be wrong, not speaking Spanish and avoiding the magazine as diligently as I did.
But, they are not rotters; they are the truly righteous. There can be no salvation worth having, nor worth the name, through God or His son.
Oh, fluffy fishfeathers. Just once, just this once, 'cuz it’s my birthday (okay, a few days ago), could our beloved evangelical atheists of the Dope be kind enough to lay off the issue of whether Christian doctrines are intrinsically wrong and evil, in favor of letting a more subtle theological debate play out between posters who buy into the Christian premise?
I’m an atheist myself, but I occasionally like to see what the theology buffs are up to these days, and it does get a bit tiresome to watch every Christian-doctrine thread degenerate into the same old “The God of the Bible is evil!” “Is not!” “Is too!” “Is not!” squabble. Forgive my grumpitude, but just for once let’s not fight the hypothetical, okay?
What fun would that be?!
I mean, Christians have their own intramural websites, don’t they?!
I guess, but you’re not going to make me go find one, are you? 
Can’t I have just one theology thread right here at home on the Dope? 'Cuz it’s my birrrrrthdayyyy? [puppy-eyes smiley]
My point was, the Christians have their own intramural websites, and the less said of them the better. But the Dope is the one and only real (virtual) world, and all Dopers have a responsibility to its spiritual, no less than to its intellectual, integrity. Down Abraham, down Moses, down Yahweh, down Allah, down Christ!
Nevertheless, Happy Birthday to you, and Goddess Bless! 
You are absolutely correct.
Christians have their own forums as do non-Christian theists, athiests and the anti-factions of all of these groups. If an infidel of any of these groups were to join and debate their position they would get quite the smackdown, thus no true debate could ever possibly occur.
The Dope is the only virtual version of the real world that reflects the real world. The real world is diversified and integrated, so are we. The real world collects pools of like minded people who make up the components of a larger diversified society as a whole, so do we.
One of the chief differences between us and the real world is that, through the babtism of an Ignorance Fighting mantra, many of us understand the importance of debate, the importance of diversity and the importance of having an open mind even (sometimes especially) when other views fly into the face of our values.
I choose to celebrate our diversity. Sure, I’m willing to debate on issues involving values, but my values are firmly rooted and I respect that other’s values are also firmly rooted. Debate offers not only the opportunity to strengthen these roots but to prune away some of the outdated leaves and branches to stimulate healthy growth. I may not agree with what you say but I am willing to die for your right to say it.
In conclusion I would like to wish Kimstu a happy birthday. To my fellow persons of all beliefs I would like to wish you a merry holiday season, and to those with no belief I would like to say:
“Stay the hell away from my cookies!!!”
“Get off my lawn!!!”
Peace
N8
I did not say “rotters who reject…”, I said “rotters who also reject”, by which I meant those people who are truly rotten & who reject the opportunity not to be. If you want to celebrate them, go right ahead.
kanicbird- I gotta do the research for the whole case, but read the last 10 verses of Ezekiel 16 about the future destiny of Sodom.
I agree with you about “fighting ignorance” however by jumping into a thread that is seeking to educate people about a subject that many don’t know or understand and effectively calling people morons means that you are threadshitting. You wouldn’t walk into a comparative religion course at a university and tell them that they are wasting their time and money, would you? The anonymity provided by the Internet does not automatically eliminate good manners and common decency.
While I may not agree with the beliefs of JW and LDS, nor with Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Wiccans or people who love broccoli, I will not jump into a thread that they started to tell them that they are wrong. I will ask why they believe or think the way they do, find out more about them and then take it or leave it. This thread strikes me as one of the “Ask the…” threads and should not be in the GD forum since it is meant to be educational, not argumentative.
Was I effectively calling people morons?
If so I hope not, that was not my intent at all.
Nor was my intent to threadshit.
Or I may have missed the point of your dissertation, in which case may I say… Oops.
I do agree with you that, as there is not especially a good debate here and that this is more of an educational thread this deserves to be in GQ or MPSIMS. However I think that it would be sent immediately back here. All (or most) things Goddish seem to be in here, most likely because of their propensity for debate.
If nothing else then the “wittnessing” by the thiests and athiests to each other about each other’s POV is worth the price of admission to GD.