Q4.0    What do JWs believe regarding the after-life and soul?
     
(N.B., this is the longest section of the FAQ, because: a) it 
exemplifies many of the ways in which JW doctrines are held together 
by a word-based ideology rather than a conceptually argued theology, 
and b) the nature of the soul/spirit is part of the most basic 
foundation of any creed; the doctrine is examined, not for its 
philosophy but for its consistency - both internally and with actual 
JW individual belief - and the manner of its presentation.)
     
An important point to note is the inadequacy of the term `immortal
soul'; this is the sole (sic) concept that JWs attribute to others.
However, the immortal soul is just one of many different attempts to
describe the experience of human consciousness. Earlier peoples
linked this to the spirit or breath; other concepts include Descartes'
locating the soul in the pineal gland, panpsychism, dual-aspect theory,
world-soul, participation in the omnipresence of God, monads, mortal 
souls, soul-atoms, and animal, vegetative, rational and irrational 
souls. All are attempts to explain both subjective experience, and the 
common impression that the self, having no physical manifestation, may
survive death - transferring to another body, inhering in an object,
returning to God or remaining in suspension until another body is
provided for it to dwell in. JWs prefer to boil all this down to simply
the 'immortal soul' - in reading this FAQ and in discussion remember
that the concept is in reality a more general, practically ubiquitous
one, of incorporeal consciousness substance (or 'stuff'). When the JW
says `immortal soul' he also means `non-incorporeal human soul/spirit
etc'. Even in WTS doctrine, souls may be incorporeal or corporeal, and 
mortal or immortal; e.g. God is an immortal, incorporeal soul, the 
angels are mortal, incorporeal souls and humans are mortal, corporeal.
The WTS doctrine, as in secular materialistic philsophies, "places
thought in a purely material animal constitution, void of an immaterial
substance." (John Locke, An Essay Concerning Human Understanding)

One of the odd things anyone will spot about JW metaphysics is that 
large parts appear to be `rational', even humanist. For instance, the 
average JW is quite proud of being unsuperstitious and commonsensical 
that `when someone is dead they are dead and do not go anywhere' and by 
denying that there is a metaphysical soul or spirit allied to the body. 
At the same time, they hold that the dead can be resurrected in the 
future; JWs are encouraged to think that a dead person will `wake up' in 
paradise as if asleep during the years of death. They do also have
a more traditional heavenly afterlife, but this is the preserve of a 
select few (144,000) who believe themselves `anointed by Holy Spirit'.
     
Essentially, then the metaphysics as they affect human beings are 
materialist - JW dogma says that the body is just a collection of atoms 
`from the dust of the earth', that the spirit is an *impersonal* 
`energizing' force somewhat akin to electricity, that the soul is simply 
the animated body, and that (contra Augustine and pro Acquinas) the 
resurrected body need have no physical link, in shared atoms with the 
original. This makes them quite unique amongst religions: the WTS soul, 
which is *material* and constantly in flux (is p173, n.b. the false 
popular notion that the entire body is changed over a 7 year cycle is 
used here) has its modern origins in David Hume, although one may trace 
it back to Greek philosophy - Aristotle held the soul to be simply the 
actuality of the life principle, and the soul perished with the body, 
(the early Stoics also believed in this perishing of the soul), Epicurus 
denied the incorporeality of the soul and survival of self after death 
[Epicurus, Letters to Herodotus, 67.8-12], and his follower Lucretius
(_On The Nature of The Universe_) compared death to an eternal sleep,
denied the existence of a fiery Hell or afterlife of any sort and
described in like terms spirit and soul, (JWs also hold similar views to
Epicurus on sexuality, joy in persecution and 'worldly pleasures')

In Russell's day this doctrine was held by Marxists rather than
Christians. Regarding the resurrection: the WTS has adopted St Thomas
Acquinas' dictum that a resurrected body need not be atomically
identical to the orignal, and the Lockean conceptual difference
between `person' and `human being': that a materially different
*human being* can be the same *person* if memory is completely
shared, and leads into the same difficulties and paradoxes (e.g.
`the mayor of Queensborough' scenario, and the conflict with the
requirement of continuous existence for non-human entities) as
Locke's identity theory and Parfit's `serial person' theory. Another
curious comparison is with the similar reincarnation-to-an-identical-
body-without-an-immortal-soul of old Druze (Lebanese) philosophy, and
to variants of Bhuddism, which also teach that there is no immortal
soul but still hold that one may come back somehow after death.
     
Except that's what they sometimes say, because they're left with a *big* 
problem: the materialist position has never posed any problems for 
atheists or agnostics, but has always been anathema for theists, because 
it denies any hope of an afterlife - if the body is simply the body then 
there is nothing left after death and decay of body to carry on. Apart 
from the JWs, the world divides into those who believe in a material, 
brain-based, soul and hence no afterlife, and those who hold that there 
is more to the soul than simply the physical body - whether they call 
this soul, spirit, self, mind ego or whatever - and that this *unique*, 
*personal*, non-material substance may survive death, and offer the 
opportunity of bodily or spiritual resurrection, nirvana, reincarnation, 
near-death experiences, ghostly return. This dichotomy was clearly seen 
in Christ's time in the dispute between the Pharisees (immortal souls & 
resurrection) and Saducees (no immortal soul, no resurrection) - the 
former won the case, in both Judaism & Christianity. Notably, Christ 
criticized the practice of the Pharisees heavily, but on this issue of
metaphysics clashed with the Saducees and was cheered on by Pharisees;
as to their teachings said simply `do as they say, not as they do' 
(Matt 22:29-32;Luke 20:34-39, 12:4-5; Matt 23:3) Paul, when challenged 
on this split, identified himself with the side of the Pharisees 
against the Saducees (Acts 23:6, 24:15).
     
So the big question is - how do JWs manage to have on the one hand, a 
modern, materialist (unfortunately, most JWs only know this word in its 
more trite meaning of `acquisitiveness' - the full usage may take some 
explaining) model of body and soul; and on the other to hold to 
traditional spiritual concepts of resurrection, incarnation, angelic 
materialization. For if death does mean total extinction- then not only 
does a resurrection become impossible (what is there to bring back) but 
so does the incarnation of Christ (whether one believes in him as God 
Almighty or the son of God), unless one makes an exception that Christ 
was not only a physical man, but unlike every other human being had a 
personal & invisible soul or spirit, which preserved his existence, but 
which negates his value as a substitute Adam and makes his posing as an 
ordinary mortal a cheating scam. For the WTS says that Christ's 
"life-force" was transferred to the womb of Mary - but what %is% this 
life-force that a spirit creature (whether God or an angel) and a human 
can share? the spirit? - which the WTS repeatedly assert is *impersonal* 
and exchangeable? some `ghost in the machine'?


"But yet when we wil inquire what makes the same spirit, man or person,
we must fix the ideas of spirit, man and person in our minds; and having
resolved with ourselves what we mean by them." Locke, Human Understanding


Note that, although spirit is defined as a simple impersonal 
non-mystical energizing force, the mere dynamic of the biological body,
at other times (when appropriate) it becomes a mystical `life-force', and 
overlaps with the multiple definitions of soul. Texts where the spirit
is entrusted to God at death are interpreted as the prospects for future 
restoration of life-force being placed in God's hands. The spirit loses 
it's impersonality and unsupernaturalness when, according to rs p255, 
"Jehovah transferred the life-force and the personality pattern of his 
first-born Heavenly Son to the womb of Mary." The soul is "the life you 
enjoy" (WT 9/1/68, p521) and on the same page, "the souls is You". The 
soul is "in the blood" and "the soul, or life, is symbolized by the 
blood" (re p100). The soul is "not immaterial", yet "it was the soul
of Jesus Christ that was resurrected" (it vII, p789) and one page on 
"in the resurrection there is no joining together of soul and body", 
and further on (p1006), "a living soul results from the combination 
of the earthly body with the breath of life." It even enjoys a quasi-
Aristotelian immortality - they use the same `fix' as Aristotle to hold
together the perishing of the soul and some hope of immortality, i.e. 
the soul is inseparable with the body and perishes along with it at 
death, but the mind can survive by participating in the immortal mind 
of god (the WTS understandably prefers to use the illustration of
immortality conferred by videotape of a person):-
     
        "Ah, but there is something of the dead soul that lives on, 
        if God chooses to have it so, and this something lays the 
        basis for a re-creation. What is that? The life-record of 
        the dead soul." WT 4/15/1963, p 241
     
        "that record represents you" ibid, p242
     
        the personality "is stored up in each one's brain, also, in 
        the blood to some extent" ibid.
     
        "resurrection or re-creation is possible because the deceased 
        individual lives in God's memory" is, p173
     
        "the Bible indicates the dead are dead. It says they are 
        asleep, conscious of nothing at all, not knowing anything, but 
        that they await the resurrection when they can stand up again 
        to life" WT 9/1/68, p 452
     
        "Resurrection involves a reactivating of the life pattern of 
        the individual, which life pattern God has retained in his 
        memory." rs p333
     
        "So they *and* their life-patterns can easily be accomodated
        in God's memory." (emphasis added), ce p246
     
Define the soul as a creature and it's mortal, define it as a 'life- 
record' and it's immortal. If a person does not exist after death, what 
does the 'awaiting', the 'sleeping', what is 'unconscious'? If a person 
`lives' in God's memory after death, does this mean that he lives in 
God's memory while he's also alive on earth? Is it the same 'life-force' 
or a copy of God's copy of the original that's transferred to the new 
body? Sometimes the new body is described as being simply patterned 
with the memory and personality - at other times (e.g. pe p174) the 
'person' is resurrected with the memory and personality that belong to 
`it' - whatever `it' is that has memory as an attribute. By changing the 
meaning of the word to fit the issue ad hoc, but keeping the actual word
the same, all manner of such untidy problems can be tied up neatly. See 
also, the Q on doublethink. Other techniques that show up elsewhere are 
the construction of a grossly simplified model of the opposing beliefs, 
the reduction of possibility to an binary choice between this model and 
their own beliefs, and a concentration on the weaknesses of the 
opposition in place of a establishing of their own doctrine.
     
_Insight on the Scriptures_ simply says that the resurrected body is a 
replica of the original one, with the old personality and memory 
*re-patterned* (_not_ transferred) to it. The only rider to the status 
as replica, is that any gross physical deformities will be rectified 
(although they've never elaborated on what happens to dwarves or aborted 
foetuses). This is remarkably and commendably honest, it's unfortunate 
that no JW believes it (that is of the tiny portion who've read it, and 
the tinier portion who've *read* it) and it's lost as one sentence in 
two large volumes. JWs on being told of this doctrine of re-creation 
rather than resurrection have typically been horrified, recoiled at 
the thought of a %copy% of their loved ones returning, and accustomed 
to their own personal beliefs, swiftly removed it from their memories. 
     
Also, carefully read, "Look! I am Making All Things New" (1986) p. 21 
par 40-41 and examine closely the pictures in light of this and the JW 
teaching that the dead will not remarry in Paradise -they don't mention 
that particular doctrine to widows on the doorstep in their promises of 
resurrection; this belief has also caused much heartache amongst 
bereaved JWs - one recently bereaved JW had but one call from his fellow 
elders after his wife's sudden death, and that was to investigate 
allegations that he'd been overheard using the scripture from Psalms 
that God would satisfy every wish in regard to his wife's resurrection; 
he then recanted and now believes `100%'. Stalinism lives!.
     
Just once, a book tackles the question head on: the _Is This Life All 
There Is?_ book asks right out the question "But is the resurrected body 
simply a replica?" and fully answers it with the diversion that one's 
body is constantly changing, the body one had ten years ago is no longer 
the same as one has today. Far from answering it, this evades the whole 
notion of continuity of existence and says in effect - yes it's a 
replica but then you're a replica now of the body you were 5 years ago. 
The only way a replica can be `genuine' is if a replica of a replica! 
Paradoxically, they can deny the question by answering yes  - but the 
logic is absent, the question is framed in such a way, the reader led 
along his own wish-fulfillments in such a way that paradoxically he is 
reassured - `it %is% me after all!`
     
The common finding in discussions on the soul with JWs is, on close 
questioning, that although the person does not officially believe in the 
immortal soul, but in practice believes in a soul that is at worst 
mortal. `There must be something other than atoms and neurons` joins the 
rhetoric of `being brought back from the dead` (but where are the dead? 
how can anything be brought back from nowhere?) in reinforcing this. 
This will be found in a wide spectrum of JWs, across every educational 
level and internal rank. It is amazing, but such is the glory of 
rhetoric, that a person - a whole group of people - can hold at least 
two conflicting viewpoints at the same time, but a lack of critical 
(independent!) thinking certainly helps.
     
Q4.1    How is it all held together?
     
_With words_
     
A brief investigation of JW literature will fast turn up their strange 
love affair with certain Greek & Hebrew words, defined in an 
out-of-context line or two from Vine's. The JW will point to the 
definition of soul as `nephesh' (literally `breather') and `psyche' and 
spirit as `pneuma' (breath) and its corresponding Hebrew term `ruach'. 
Their game is using only one of a word's meanings, or claiming its 
original meaning to be the only one, and ignore the idiomatic and 
metaphorical usages a word picks over time. Strong's reference of Bible 
words, defines the key terms thus:-
     
G5590 psuche, psoo-khay'; from 5594; breath, i.e. (by impl.) spirit,
      abstr. or  concr. (the animal sentient principle only; thus 
      distinguished on the one hand from 4151, which is the rational and 
      immortal soul; and on the other from 2222, which is mere vitality, 
      even of plants; these terms thus exactly correspond respectively to 
      the Hev. 5315, 7307 and 2416):- heart (+ -ily), life, mind, soul, + 
      us, + you.
     
H5315 nephesh, neh'-fesh; from 5314; prop. a breathing creature, i.e.
      animal or (abstr.) vitality; used very widely in a lit., 
      accommodated or fig. sense (bodily or mental):-any, appetite, 
      beast, body, breath, creature, X dead (-ly), desire, X [dis-] 
      contented, X fish, ghost, + greedy, he, heart (-y), (hath, X 
      jeopardy of) life (X in jeopardy), lust, man, me, mind, mortally, 
      one, own, person, pleasure, (her-, him-, my-, thy-) self, them 
      (your) -selves, + slay, soul, + tablet, they, thing, (X she) will, 
      X would have it.
     
H5082 nediybah, ned-ee-baw'; fem. of 5081; prop. nobility, i.e.
      reputation: -soul.
     
The notion that these words have only single simplest meanings might 
seem laughable to someone who's studied language, but 99% of JWs have 
not. The fact that contemporary writers used these very terms in their 
non-materialistic sense is nowhere alluded to; neither do they literally 
translate the word `soulical` - nor ever question whether this also 
limits the meaning of `Holy Spirit'. The quote below from the NCE 
renders dubious any attempt to use the same word to translate the 
terms ne'phesh and psy'khe whatever the context and in both Testaments:
     
"There is no dichotomy of the body and soul in the Old Testament. The 
Israelite saw things concretely, in their totality, and thus he 
considered men as persons and not as composites. The term nepes 
[ne'phesh], though translated by our word soul, never means soul as 
distinct from the body or the individual person.... The term [psy-khe'] 
is the New Testament word corresponding with nepes. It can mean the 
principle of life, life itself, or the living being."-New Catholic 
Encyclopedia (1967), Vol.XIII, pp.449-450.
     
There are a few other things to note about this quote, which are 
indicative of the ambiguities surrounding this issue in every system. 
Firstly, it describes nephesh as `person' and not `composite' and then 
describes the equivalent Greek word as being a person *or* just abstract 
life. Putting it into a cultural context, the same observations about 
Israelites and their viewing of people `concretely' `in their totality' 
has also been remarked about Homer, Sophocles, Aeschylus et al - the 
fact, however, that they treated people as social functionaries and whole 
beings, does not prevent them from describing the underworld with its 
`shades' of dead humans - but without having to believe that the human is 
`body+shade'; in the same manner that Hebrews can talk of simple 
nephesh's but upon death describe the journey of the spirit.
[See file sheol.txt in the resurrection archive for a discussion of 
the Jewish word translated as `hell' in English.]
     
Furthermore, these beliefs vary substantially, not only across 
cultures, but within them and across time - there are different 
Christian and Jewish versions of the body/soul/spirit question, and 
often the soul is held to be `the animated body' but animated by a 
spiritual spirit and sometimes the soul is the `ghost in the machine'. 
Early Greeks believed the soul to *be* the breath (cf nephesh), and to 
leave the body at death - consequently, the soul in Hades could not see 
or hear, but could smell. Plato and Aristotle enlarged the concept of 
soul to a three part division - vegetative, animal and intellectual. 
JWs ignore the complexities of the issue and argue against a straw man, 
which is closer to some popular Greek understanding than to any
orthodox Christian doctrine. This may allow them to point to a scripture 
or quotation that agrees with them, say, on body and soul but ignore the 
fact that the writer meant by *spirit* what JWs understand him to mean 
by soul - and other combinations of soul, spirit, mind & life-force. 
For example, Ezekiel 18:4 is used by JWs, but depends on the soul 
straw-man; if the hearers know that the Jews of his time - like some 
early Greeks - associated the immortal essence with the breath/spirit 
and not the soul, then this `proof' of materialism is worthless (cf. 
Ps 31:5; Acts 7:59, Luke 23:46). Add to this, the `taking up into the 
sky' of Enoch and Elijah, the latter's reappearance with Moses in the
Transfiguration, the words of the Early Fathers, and the popular Jewish 
acceptance of reincarnation displayed in the belief that John the 
Baptist was Elijah reborn, and that Jesus was John the Baptist reborn.
     
There can be few cultures, prior to our own secular, humanistic one, 
that have denied the suggestion of immateriality which consciousness 
incessantly makes - JWs will try to interpret passages of scripture to 
paint the OT characters as believing in no afterlife or immortal soul, 
but skirt the passages where the spirit is pictured as returning thru 
the air to God, scriptures which assert that the soul is *in* the blood, 
Christ's `do not fear man who can destroy the body, but not the soul', 
or Saul's automatic acceptance that the witch of Endor's ectoplasmic 
figure was indeed Samuel, which would be incredible if Saul had been 
brought up in such a culture. Much is made of scriptures where souls 
are said to perish or die; yet people every day continue to speak in 
this fashion who believe in the immortal soul (30 souls lost at sea, 
you poor soul), and these scriptures only work if the right fancy 
footwork with spirit and soul is used there to translate them. [See 
also the file jw#16.txt in the nwt archive, for coverage of the way 
the NWT was translated to fit these doctrines.]
     
The miracles and promises of the Bible are predicated on their being a 
unique person, non-identical with the physical body (Jesus: man can kill 
the body, but not the soul), a soul as every religion has taught - it 
may be said that from an orthodox Christian perspective, it is the JW 
materialist conception of the body and soul, rather than the denial of 
the Trinity, which is the true mark of heresy. According to the 
ramifications of JW philosophy, Jesus Christ was a man who had a tiny 
subset of the memory and personality of the Son of God, but who shared 
not an atom, nor a part of a spirit body with the immensely superior 
heavenly personage of either the Archangel Michael or God himself. If he 
was a real human being while on earth, then there was nothing more than 
a body of chemicals from the dust of the earth, animated by an 
*impersonal* breath of life, and with a personality determined by the 
DNA, and memories and tendencies patterned in the brain. Moreover, there 
was no practical reason for God not to have sent identical Christs to 
the Jews, Incas, Papua New Guineans and Laplanders - the plurality would 
make only a numerical and not a substantial difference to the nature of 
Christ. This isn't a tendentious conclusion, it's simply putting 
together what JWs say in bits, but never think through to the logical, 
scriptural conclusions.

Q4.2    How can I find what the individual JW actually believes?
     
***Remember the definition of terms from one argument to the next.***

Get the JW to describe his own centers of consciousness. Ask his 
opinions about the resurrection being a replica without showing it from 
_Insight_. Whenever he introduces new words - life-pattern, life-force 
etc - be alert and ask just what they are; remember that JWs say that 
the spirit of humans is impersonal. Also, it may be worth following up 
the other definition made occasionally of the soul - that it is `in the 
blood` - when they also say it is the entire body - pin `em down on it - 
and don't let him change definitions in midstream. If he can't recall 
that the WTS teaches the spirit to be an impersonal non-mystical
force, do it for him! And look out for distinctions without differences.
     
Think through the implications of JW beliefs - this gives you one big 
advantage, since it's something JWs rarely do themselves. And pin down 
exactly what happened to Jesus - if the soul is simply material then the 
only link that the human Jesus had with heavenly one is a shared memory 
(which the JWs suggest was given after baptism, in the wilderness) What 
happened to the angelic/divine Jesus? He'll answer: his life-force(!?!) 
was transferred to the foetus in Mary's womb (they also believe that it 
was Mary's egg, but the sperm's job was done by the Holy Spirit). You'll 
reply - what's the life-force? do we all have one? is it the spirit? 
the soul? if there was no spirit part to JC when on earth where was his 
previous spirit body - destroyed? hanging around in the deep-freeze to 
be thawed for his homecoming? He may respond: these are speculations, 
we trust these details to God? You`ll reply with horror: the coming of 
Christ, his death and ransom sacrifice, the resurrection of humans - 
are these mere details? how can one be a Christian if one is less than 
sure about such things? what foundation is that for faith? where is 
your epi'gnosis (accurate knowledge)?
     
JWs have a fascination with illustrations - no talk is complete without 
them, and much time spent devising and exchanging them. So here's one -- 
but first of all, establish exactly what their beliefs are. Lay out the 
accepted JW model of resurrection - the person dies, there is nothing 
left, but God remembers all the persons character and memories. After a 
period of time god will fashion a new body, from different matter, in the 
form of the old, breathe new (and *impersonal*) spirit into it and 
pattern the brain with the memory and personality of the former. Person 
wakes up, can remember all his past life, recognizes sundry relatives 
present at shattered grave, and is instantly recognizable to them, by 
appearance, mannerisms and shared memories. That's their orthodox 
procedure, any JW who doesn`t agree to this, is out of line with their 
current thought and should be pursued for such. Fine, they accept it, now 
for some questions:
     
"When does God have a person in his memory? Does he have all of your 
details in memory right now, or does he have to wait until you die to 
have everything in his memory? (Any squirming about speculation and 
detail is easily countered: surely you're not suggesting any limitations 
on God's part? that he doesn't know you intimately at every time? his 
infinite memory can easily hold the entire human race, yes?) [N.B. that 
this admission, which is inescapable from their system, rules out the 
'God transfers life-pattern to his memory at death scenario' which 
implies that God doesn't have one immediately in his memory at all times 
- this may be useful later] So, he knows, at this very moment, without 
any effort, your entire personality and memory, and moreover has the 
ability to create a new human body for you? Therefore, if you died, he 
could immediately bring you back to life, just like Jairus` daughter, or 
the widow's son? [Another inescapable yes] "
     
"If, therefore, the resurrection is simply a matter of creating a new 
body with the dust of the ground and fashioning it according to God's 
memory of one's personality and life, there can be no reason why God 
couldn't resurrect you right at this very moment, without your having to 
die first? even make 4 of you? [here's where the squirming will start - 
this is logically inevitable, but unpalatable and impossible from the 
rank'n'file JW view]"
     
"If he doesn't do it, it must be a voluntary limiting of his power to 
avoid unpleasant confusion? though it`d be handy, wouldn't it - one of 
you working away and the other in the Bahamas? there's nothing 
physically to prevent God from so doing?" [Although God is omniscient 
and omnipotent, but not omnipresent in JW doctrine (he can do anything 
except lie), it's essential in this line of argument not to be deflected 
by the illogic of confusing what God *could* do and what he *would* do
-  this argument does *not* depend on God's omnipotence, merely on a 
specific ability which the WTS claims for him, and the congruence 
between official WTS dogma and the everyday beliefs of JWs. It's not 
about how or why God works, simply *when*. Where omnipotence might be 
an issue, is the question whether God can warp space-time and retrofit 
a resurrected person with the continuous existence he missed while 
being dead; but this sci-fi question does not arise in WTS books.]
     
"Well let's say the he, in his higher wisdom, does it. Perhaps, in an 
extreme case of persecution or to for the sake of the preaching work, 
we'll leave the reasons up to him [his thoughts are higher than ours], 
but we'll deal with the consequences. Is the resurrected you, sitting 
next to you, `you`? If I asked you to prove that you were the real `you` 
could you? But he looks identical, I can ask him all the questions about 
your childhood and he'll know them. If he met your family while you're 
here, what would they think - and if a week later they met you, how 
could you prove yourself, you wouldn`t be able to tell them the things 
`you` were doing with them all that week, would you? And if you died, 
would anyone know any better - no one, not you (rotting in the grave), 
not your family, not the resurrected one would be any the wiser."
     
"Now that scenario may be implausible, but only to humans - it is 
easily in the power of God. And it's identical to the resurrection you 
believe in - the *only* difference is that the original person hangs 
around a little longer, and overlaps with his replacement - but the
*procedure is exactly the same*. If there's no non-material [and this is 
the nub of the whole argument] thing that makes your body uniquely 
`you`, then your being alive makes not the slightest difference to the 
identity or status of the resurrected person - you are separate bodies, 
although identical in appearance."
     
The caveat to this whole thing is that a JW is quite capable of seeing 
green where there's orange, and insulting the person who sees orange. 
The constant resurrection propaganda, their own personal hopes, and the 
everyday beliefs in human consciousness which practically everyone holds 
combine to repel all intruding thoughts, even when these are the WTS 
official doctrines, or the implications of such. JWs are so accustomed 
to presenting a scripture or argument for every question, that often 
they confuse the simple act of giving such, with actually answering the 
question or using the verse to *prove* something; not realizing that 
verses and definitions prove nothing, it is how they are *used* that is 
important - if pressed they may simply repeat the point again and again, 
hence the fallacy known as the %ad nauseam%. Other reactions usually 
include finding a straw man, an ad hominem, laborious special pleading, 
zooming in on one insignificant phrase, or dismissing the whole thing, 
letting God sort out the details - if only these were the details!
     
The most common finding, however, is that an underlying belief
in a soul, `life-force' or spirit, immortal or mortal, or at least 
something mystical, past understanding which provides that immediate 
sense of `seat of consciousness' and guarantee of identity over time, 
is revealed. The JW rhetoric, and the heavy use of illustrations and 
pictures permits and reinforces such thinking - it's this mystical
something which returns to God and is `transferred` back to the new body 
- despite their rational acceptance that God can have nothing of our 
memory or character added or `returned' to him at death, and likewise 
can have nothing subtracted or `transferred' at resurrection time. By 
information control, strong use of pictures and metaphoric language, 
making use of common hopes and fears, changing the meaning of words, 
concentrating on the weaknesses of a caricature of the rest of the 
world's views - this is the formula for welding a materialist soul
to a spiritual theology, and selling it to millions (who'll never die). 
There's no WT monopoly on such practices; compare the summary below of 
a critique of the literary theory of reader-response, which like the
WT soul belief, apparently holds together contradictory positions:
     
        "But the asking of hard questions is not something the theory 
        encourages, and indeed its weaknesses from one point of view 
        are its strengths from another. By defining his key terms in 
        a number of ways, (he) provides himself in advance with a 
        storehouse of defensive strategies ... It is a marvelous 
        machine whose very loose-jointedness makes it invulnerable to 
        a frontal assault (including, no doubt the assault I am now 
        mounting). It is in fact not a theory at all ... it is full 
        of gaps, and the reader is invited to fill them in ,in his
        own way." - Stanley Fish, "Who's Afraid of Wolfgang Iser?"
     
---------------------------------------------        
file: /pub/resources/text/apl/jw/jwfaq.03.txt 
(continued, see jwfaq.04.txt)