JWs sue Norwegian government

[Srecko Sostar]

1 hour ago, George88 said:

I hope that the courts will expose former witnesses for trying to distort scripture.

In court it is not about biblical quotations/scripture, but about the results, the consequences of the instructions that have been institutionally embedded through the Legal Entity aka WTJWorg and JWs.

[George88]

3 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

In court it is not about biblical quotations/scripture, but about the results, the consequences of the instructions that have been institutionally embedded through the Legal Entity

God's court surpasses any government court that oversteps its authority to punish His faithful followers. Ultimately, those governments will be judged by God, rendering your theory empty rhetoric. Just as you can never be superior to God, the governments of this world cannot either.
Defying God simply because people feel unfairly treated is not a wise choice, especially considering that True Christians are actively pursuing personal salvation.

[George88]

3 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

JWs explain that God left Satan and Adam and Eve alive so that questions about who has the right to rule and similar questions about God's justice could be answered. Because if God immediately punished them with death, the angels would have doubts as to whether the rebels were right after all.

When you refrain from distorting your argument, you will discover a refreshing clarity, even if you no longer possess the ability to proclaim the truth. It appears that you have firmly decided to harbor hatred towards the Watchtower and God.

3 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

This actually means that God has allowed his authority to be questioned, by humans and angels, until today. So, you didn't reason correctly, and you didn't understand the answer I gave. Your comment means that if you are a JW, you haven't studied the official theology of the WTJWorg enough. And neither were they when they explained the events in Paradise that way. Because such explanation by GB open door to comment in the way i gave.

Yes, rather than blaming God for the challenges in your life, consider taking logical responsibility by acknowledging your own choices and their misalignment with God's values. It's important to recognize that God did not create Satan; instead, He created an Angel who chose to rebel and become Satan. These are two distinct identities arising from the same creator. The transformation from good to bad was a result of personal choice, not a direct act of God. 

True witnesses have genuinely sought to understand the word of God through diligent study. However, by engaging with disgruntled individuals who lack such understanding and create distorted narratives for personal gain, your perspective has been compromised. It is essential to seek genuine sources of wisdom. Something people won't find here. 

[Srecko Sostar]

18 minutes ago, George88 said:

It's important to recognize that God did not create Satan; instead, He created an Angel who chose to rebel and become Satan. These are two distinct identities arising from the same creator. The transformation from good to bad was a result of personal choice, not a direct act of God. 

As I already said, "free will". lol

[George88]

1 hour ago, Srecko Sostar said:

As I already said, "free will". lol

Great! Applying it in its proper context shouldn't pose any difficulties. God values the presence of "good" free will rather than "bad" free will. If you grasp this distinction sooner rather than later, it will lead to a better outcome for you, or not. lol!

[Srecko Sostar]

7 hours ago, George88 said:

Great! Applying it in its proper context shouldn't pose any difficulties. God values the presence of "good" free will rather than "bad" free will. If you grasp this distinction sooner rather than later, it will lead to a better outcome for you, or not. lol!

You are truly fantastic. Now you are introducing a whole new terminology and thesis into JWs beliefs system: "good free will" vs "bad free will".

Are you perhaps in the class called "GB Helpers"? lol

[George88]

1 hour ago, Srecko Sostar said:

You are truly fantastic. Now you are introducing a whole new terminology and thesis into JWs beliefs system: "good free will" vs "bad free will".

There is nothing groundbreaking for those who possess critical thinking skills. This idea has persisted throughout the ages.

1 hour ago, Srecko Sostar said:

Are you perhaps in the class called "GB Helpers"?

My classification serves as a helper of God's truth and will, supporting it rather than the complaints of dissatisfied people and witnesses.

[George88]

Matthew 6:9-10 New International Version
9 “This, then, is how you should pray: “‘Our Father in heaven, hallowed be your name, 10 your kingdom come, your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven.

 

 

[Srecko Sostar]

5 hours ago, George88 said:

your will be done,

....your GOOD will be done, ........

lol

[George88]

8 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

....your GOOD will be done, ........

Put it simply, Srecko, if the terms of punishment are established in secular law, they are also established in God's law. Replace the term "free will" that you are advocating with the term "choice."

Free Will -- Harris, Sam [Harris, Sam] -- 2012 
Moral Responsibility
The belief in free will has given us both the religious conception of “sin” and our commitment to retributive justice. The U.S. Supreme Court has called free will a “universal and persistent” foundation for our system of law, distinct from “a deterministic view of human conduct that is inconsistent with the underlying precepts of our criminal justice system” (United States. esv Grayson)

1978). Any intellectual developments that threatened free will would seem to put the ethics of punishing people for their bad behavior in question.

The great worry, of course, is that an honest discussion of the underlying causes of human behavior appears to leave no room for moral responsibility. If we view people as neuronal weather patterns, how can we coherently speak about right and wrong or good and evil? These notions seem to depend upon people being able to freely choose how to think and act. And if we remain committed to seeing people as people, we must find some notion of personal responsibility that fits the facts.
The only remaining question to consider in each instance is, to what extent.

[Srecko Sostar]

7 hours ago, George88 said:

Put it simply, Srecko, if the terms of punishment are established in secular law, they are also established in God's law. Replace the term "free will" that you are advocating with the term "choice."

Free Will -- Harris, Sam [Harris, Sam] -- 2012 
Moral Responsibility
The belief in free will has given us both the religious conception of “sin” and our commitment to retributive justice. The U.S. Supreme Court has called free will a “universal and persistent” foundation for our system of law, distinct from “a deterministic view of human conduct that is inconsistent with the underlying precepts of our criminal justice system” (United States. esv Grayson)

1978). Any intellectual developments that threatened free will would seem to put the ethics of punishing people for their bad behavior in question.

The great worry, of course, is that an honest discussion of the underlying causes of human behavior appears to leave no room for moral responsibility. If we view people as neuronal weather patterns, how can we coherently speak about right and wrong or good and evil? These notions seem to depend upon people being able to freely choose how to think and act. And if we remain committed to seeing people as people, we must find some notion of personal responsibility that fits the facts.
The only remaining question to consider in each instance is, to what extent.

Yes, I believe we are a little under-capacitated, not intentionally, when we speaking about the term "free will". Mostly, in fact always, we equate "free will" with "choice".
I have never thought deeply about this topic, but I have a feeling that behind the term "free will" there is something else, something more that we do not see or know.
We have accepted the basic concept, that free will equals a choice between two or more things, as the only definition of free will.

For example, the comment you posted talks about an aspect of free will that is associated with "moral responsibility", with "sin", with "punishment", with "good and evil", with "right and wrong".

However, if one chooses to paint the walls of one's room blue rather than another color, then no human or divine "law" can be applied to sanction one's "choice". Because in this case it's not about whether someone has a sense of "right and wrong", it's about someone's taste for colors. And that taste for colors can be subject to the judgment of other people too, but that enters into another dimension of "condemnation or approval".
I have only illustrated how the term "free will" has a different meaning than the one used in the religious or criminal-law context of past and present humanity.

Or for example this. The parent returns home from work. He is tired, not everything went as planned at work, traffic jams and nervousness. He enters the house, the children have their needs, they ask to eat, they are hungry or they have made a mess in the house because of the game. The parent starts making noise and maybe punishes the children with a slap or hits them. Is it this only about the concept of the parent's basic "free will" to react that way, or did a combination of circumstances lead the parent to a mental and emotional state that led him to make a "bad choice"? 

 

[George88]

9 minutes ago, Srecko Sostar said:

However, if one chooses to paint the walls of one's room blue rather than another color, then no human or divine "law" can be applied to sanction one's "choice". 

Doesn't this depend on the preferences of the residents? What would happen if you are married and your spouse dislikes that color? This assumption is too general.

13 minutes ago, Srecko Sostar said:

Or for example this. The parent returns home from work. He is tired, not everything went as planned at work, traffic jams and nervousness. He enters the house, the children have their needs, they ask to eat, they are hungry or they have made a mess in the house because of the game. The parent starts making noise and maybe punishes the children with a slap or hits them. Is it this only about the concept of the parent's basic "free will" to react that way, or did a combination of circumstances lead the parent to a mental and emotional state that led him to make a "bad choice"? 

Does this illustration depict the difference between a child doing something wrong and a parent simply feeling overwhelmed by the challenges of daily life? You are outlining two separate perspectives.

One should receive nurturing guidance while the other should aspire to develop their full potential.