Why JW's don't believe in the Hell

[SteveVH]

Hi, I’ve been away for a bit.
Just to clarify what you have correctly stated, JW’s currently have approx 7 million active members.
We expect there will be a total of 144k who will go to heaven. They will become kings and priests, and will rule over those on earth. Only these 144k will be granted immortality.

Those not of the 144k have the prospect of living forever on earth, not with immortality but with everlasting life.

The difference being that immortals cannot die but those with everlasting life can, if they later rebel against God like Adam and Eve did.

Confused? You will be!

Redle

So do you believe these 144,000 are all virgins (male virgins, since they have not been defiled by woman)?

“No one could learn this hymn except the hundred and forty-four thousand who had been ransomed from the earth. These are they who were not defield with women; they are virgins and these are the ones who follow the lamb wherever he goes.” (Rev 14:3-4)

It also seems that if one can loose everlasting life while in Paradise, then things aren’t really much different than right now. Maybe you could explain? Will there still be people who commit evil and loose their salvation?

 

[minkymurph]

Hello all, first of all I would like to mention to all of you that are giving respect and time to this JW thinking that he/she is giving you the same respect are being deceived. (That is unless he goes against the Watchtower teaching that Catholics are the chief member of Babylon the Great) If he is a true Jehovah’s Witness, then he is doing what all JW’s do, that is appearing to be interested in what religious doctrine you present him as if it could possibly change his mind, but in reality is just looking at ways to develop insecurity in your beliefs due to either misunderstanding/lack of bible knowledge.

If what you say is true, it will soon become apparent and he/she will leave the discussion when they don’t achieve that objective, and in my experience of the forums they never do.

In my experience, discussions with JW’s start off very civilized and charitable, but when it becomes apparent there are people on the forums who; know scripture, know what JW’s believe and can present reasoned arguments as to why they don’t accept their beliefs, and present reasoned arguments for their own beliefs, the discussion ceases to be civilized and charitable and often comes to an abrupt end by way of the JW throwing teddy out the cot because people won’t accept what they say. That comment may sound very uncharitable. It is not intended to be uncharitable. It is merely an observation based on previous encounters with JW’s on the forums.

However, in order to be fair let’s not prejudge the situation. This particular discussion may not follow the same path. Its possible he/she may simply agree to differ and the discussion will end on an amicable note. In addition, he/she does run appear a ‘post and run’ poster as he/she is engaging in discussion. ‘Post and run’ posters don’t do that.

Time will tell.

 

[minkymurph]

1.)

Do you credit anyone’s baptism in Christ as equal to JW’s baptism?

What constitutes a ‘false’ baptism, and what constitues a valid one to a JW?

 

[redle]

Hello
1.) Do you credit anyone’s baptism in Christ as equal to JW’s baptism?
2.) Are you willing to believe in something different than what you are told is truth from the faithful and discreet slave?
3.) Do you think that the timing of one’s being born (before or after Jesus’ death) really would influence one’s eternal destination?
4.) Do you believe that these strange doctrines that were newly introduced in the last 100+ years nullify what has been taught for 2,000 years?
5.) Do you really believe that Jesus returned to rule in 1914?

Hi Pacloc,

Having the same ‘grounding’ as you, I hear your anger and suspicion.
To answer your questions, and remember, you asked me what I believe - this is not necessarily the official JW party line:

1. Currently undecided. I think I’m leaning more towards Yes than No.
2. I already do. My teachings from the platform are carefully worded however.
3. Yes. Until Christ died the way into heaven had not been opened.
4. No (if I understand your question correctly). The teachings in the last 100 years are sometimes odd, sometimes incorrect and sometimes correct. None of these should nullify the Bible though.
5. No, I personally think it’s still future, and the newest ‘light’ on jw.org can be construed to support that.

Thanks for the softening tone too - I’m really not here to convert - my opening post here was to answer questions. I’m sorry you have family issues as a result of your decisions - I’ve seen it too often.

Redle.

 

[redle]

So would it be correct to say that JWs do indeed believe in the immortality of the soul, but only for a select group of people?

If this is correct, then are you saying that the Scripture you use to cite that the soul is NOT immortal do not apply to this select group?

It’s not quite that simple.
JW’s believe a soul = ‘breather’, so to be a soul (note again, not HAVE a soul) you need to be earthly.

But immortality, yes in the future for some.

Redle.

 

[redle]

What constitutes a ‘false’ baptism, and what constitues a valid one to a JW?

This is where it gets controversial.

To JW’s, a baptism is into a religion as much as into Christ.
If you are baptised into an eastern non-christian religion, is that valid?
If you are baptised into a fringe Christian religion, is that valid? (Yes, I’m well aware of what I just wrote)

JW’s are of the mind that baptism also includes an acceptance of the teachings of Christ as understood by the religion you are baptised into.

So my being baptised into the RCC would not be valid with JW’s since JW’s do not accept many of the RC teachings.

Redle.

 

[redle]

I wouldn’t say confused I just don’t see the point.

Are you saying those with everlasting life may, like Adam and Eve disobey God and no longer be sinless? A repeat of what happened in Eden? What would be the point of that?

The point is that humans will not have free will removed from them.
If someone wishes to disobey God during the paradise, well the issues have already been proven legally so the punishment, death, can be exacted straight away.

Redle.

 

[PRmerger]

It’s not quite that simple.
JW’s believe a soul = ‘breather’, so to be a soul (note again, not HAVE a soul) you need to be earthly.

But immortality, yes in the future for some.

Redle.

And those who are immortal do not have a soul in heaven?

 

[redle]

And those who are immortal do not have a soul in heaven?

I’m pretty certain that the correct definition we use.
Much has been written on it in JW literature, but I believe that’s correct, yes, they are spirits, not souls.

Note again, you are using the terms ‘have’. We do not concur with ‘have’.

 

[minkymurph]

It’s not quite that simple.
JW’s believe a soul = ‘breather’, so to be a soul (note again, not HAVE a soul) you need to be earthly.

But immortality, yes in the future for some.

Redle.

I know you addressed this to PR, but I referred to this in my post. (Sorry for jumping in PR, but I don’t think you will mind. )

Catholics do not believe we ‘have’ a soul. The soul and the body are not two separate entities. that’s dualism which Catholics do not believe in. What makes our soul distinct from animals is we are made in the Image of God and as such, destined to share His eternal life.

 

[minkymurph]

The point is that humans will not have free will removed from them.
If someone wishes to disobey God during the paradise, well the issues have already been proven legally so the punishment, death, can be exacted straight away.

Redle.

Catholics do not believe humans will have free will removed from them.

What issues have been proven legally? Why can death be exacted straight away?

 

[minkymurph]

To JW’s, a baptism is into a religion as much as into Christ.

Which religion?

If you are baptised into an eastern non-christian religion, is that valid?.

It would be a valid eastern non-christian baptism if it meets the criteria of the denomination in question. It would not be a valid Christian baptism because the person being baptised does not have the intention to become a Christian, and the one baptising does not have the intention to perform a Christian baptism.

If you are baptised into a fringe Christian religion, is that valid? (Yes, I’m well aware of what I just wrote)…

That would depend on the rite performed and the intention of the person being baptised. There are baptism’s performed by other Christian denominations the CC recognise as valid because they meet the criterion of a Christian baptism.

JW’s are of the mind that baptism also includes an acceptance of the teachings of Christ as understood by the religion you are baptised into.

Can you clarify what you mean by ‘includes?’ What else does one need to do apart from accept the teachings of Christ? In addition, which teachings of Christ does one need to accept?

So my being baptised into the RCC would not be valid with JW’s since JW’s do not accept many of the RC teachings.

So would you say holding certain beliefs invalidates a baptism?

 

[minkymurph]

I know you addressed this to PR, but I referred to this in my post. (Sorry for jumping in PR, but I don’t think you will mind. )

Catholics do not believe we ‘have’ a soul. The soul and the body are not two separate entities. that’s dualism which Catholics do not believe in. What makes our soul distinct from animals is we are made in the Image of God and as such, destined to share His eternal life.

I just thought I should explain this further. Catholics don’t use the term ‘have’ in the sense of a material thing we possess. It’s our spiritual life we are given by God. The body is the physical, organic, material life.

 

[minkymurph]

1. No, I personally think it’s still future, and the newest ‘light’ on jw.org can be construed to support that.

So are you saying JW’s no longer believe Christ became King of Heaven in 1914?

 

[PRmerger]

I’m pretty certain that the correct definition we use.
Much has been written on it in JW literature, but I believe that’s correct, yes, they are spirits, not souls.

Note again, you are using the terms ‘have’. We do not concur with ‘have’.

Fair enough.

So in JW theology the 144,000 are exempt from that which you described in Ezekiel as proof that souls die?

 

[PRmerger]

I know you addressed this to PR, but I referred to this in my post. (Sorry for jumping in PR, but I don’t think you will mind. )

Not at all!

All are welcome to respond to all conversations–that’s the* modus operandi* of a forum.

 

[Porknpie]

I’m pretty certain that the correct definition we use.
Much has been written on it in JW literature, but I believe that’s correct, yes, they are spirits, not souls.

Note again, you are using the terms ‘have’. We do not concur with ‘have’.

Redle -

I know there are numerous posts here… can you please respond to my post #45.

Thank you,

 

[minkymurph]

Redle -

I know there are numerous posts here… can you please respond to my post #45.

Thank you,

And when you can find the time, could you offer an opinion on what I said at #35 concerning Ezekiel 18?

I appreciate you have a lot of posts to answer and I’m not trying to pressure you - no rush.

 

[pacloc]

Redle,

It looks like you are halfway out the door with your responses to those questions, which is a great thing. You probably see the JW as the closest religion to being correct, with its own faults and wrong predictions in the past. I was not aware of the new understanding of the faithful and discreet slave, very strange choice in completely changing who the slave is, when it began, and who the domestics are. I would have to say that their change to 1919 as being the year it started is to distance themselves from Charles Taze Russel, seeing as he was dead before then and was never part of the newly understood faithful and discreet slave. Rutherford is not much of a better example of modern day witnesses, but he did introduce most of the core JW doctrine.

But to be clear, the article still holds to the invisible return of Jesus in 1914, so you really are going against the watchtower on that one, and proving that to householders is still part of your job as JW. It looks like you are exactly in the position I was about a year ago, disagreeing with JW doctrine, being careful in what I said on the stage, hoping for the light to get brighter in the JW understanding. Eventually you will not feel comfortable hiding dissenting opinions hopefully you will make the choice to leave. If you have bible studies as I had, you find it almost impossible to cover the material in the bible teach book that covers information you disagree about, 1914 for example. Just know that I have search high and low for maybe a religion that made sense, and finally landed in the Catholic Church of all places, with their saints, popes, trinity and all.

So to get on the topic of the thread about punishment in hell, I read online somewhere 2 great logical explanations as to why it makes sense. First of all, do you recall what punishment was required in the mosaic law for blaspheming Yahweh? Leviticus 24:14-16 shows that the whole city was to gather around this individual and pick up stones and personally kill this man by throwing stones at him until he died. Does that sound like what JW teach “Jehovah” would have you do today?? Of course not. Can you even imagine if a governing body member told you to pick up stones and proceed to destroy a young boy for cursing his father? (Lev 20:9) It is almost ridiculous to even contemplate the idea that God will not punish the wicked with torture, even though he says he will numerous times in scripture. King David prayed for it multiple times in psalms. Anyway, a more scriptural explanation of the idea is found in all the gospels, Matt 18:5-7, Mk 9:42, Luke 17:1-2, which coincidentally explains the biggest sin JW commit by spreading their lies door to door. But the point I am making is that for some reason it would be better to die a horribly violent and painful death of drowning than to offend Jesus by being obstacles to his little ones. So how could a painful death be better than annihilation? To Jdubs they are the same thing. This being stated in all 3 Gospels really shows that this is no mere exaggeration, but truth that these real apostates will receive punishment of the most severest kind. I am not saying I know what that exactly that means or for how long, but that is not the point.

Jdubs love to talk about the same “big” issues all the time, hellfire, immortality of the soul, and the trinity. The sad thing is that they get so caught up in thinking that they know these deep spiritual truths and don’t realize that they are committing some of the gravest sins of berating Christians.

Please consider discussing with me personally some things that you are struggling with.

Peace,

Greg.

 

[minkymurph]

But to be clear, the article still holds to the invisible return of Jesus in 1914.

I had a look at a watchtower article online - April 2012 I think. As I understand it,and I could be wrong, JW’s still hold to 1914 being the year Christ became King in heaven and returned invisibly. What has changed, as it has many times, their interpretation of ‘this generation,’ in that anyone who recognises the’ signs,’ (the last days began in 1914) and doesn’t ‘repent’ is a member of ‘this generation?’ Is this correct or have I misunderstood?

This thread is about hell and the soul. I can understand why people would reject notions of literally burning in hell for all eternity. Not all Catholics believe that. I know some Catholics do. Personally I don’t. I don’t have the exact extract from the CCC, but I believe it does say we do not know what the physical condition of hell is like. As such, it is not contrary to Catholic teaching to hold the opinion hell is not literal fire. What I don’t understand is why 1914 is so important because I can’t see how it is in any way significant to, or related to, redemption and our eternal salvation?

Further to this, there are real difficultis with the 144 000 and living on earth forever. The 144 000 cannot be a literal number of people going to heaven. Could God really not find 144 000 faithful Christians prior to the late 1800’s? If I have got this right, which I may not have, the 144 000 will never rebel against God, yet the possibility exists those God gives eternal life to on earth might purely on the basis the 144 000 became Christians before they did? To me, this means that not only could the fall happen all over again, but the judgement they and any children they may have will be more harsh than that Adam and Eve recieved, as rather than preserve them so future generations may be redeemed and share in the eternal life of God, they will instantly be put to death? How can this be considered just?