Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses and salvation

message: JW publications typically use the term "paradise earth" rather than "paradisaic earth" or "paradisiac earth".Should encyclopedic references to JW beliefs use the perfectly grammatical term used overwhelmingly in JW literature, or should encyclopedic references inject one of the two latter terms?JWs would likely note that parts of the earth are already "paradisaic", that is, "like paradise". Additionally, IMHO, "paradisaic" reminds me of the snack foods at the convenience store labeled "choclaty cake" rather than "chocolate cake"; one wonders if there is any actual "chocolate" in the "choclaty cake". Why fudge the matter? --AuthorityTam (talk) 21:22, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No. Paradise does not normally function as an adjective. Paradisaic is favourable over paradisiac (which is incorrectly influenced by the word 'aphrodisiac'). Rewording in forms such as 'earth will be a paradise' are also acceptable. Your own relative unfamiliarity with the word "paradisaic", demonstrated by your comparison to 'choclaty', does not invalidate the correctness of the word in favour of JW jargon.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:11, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: "...relative unfamiliarity with the word "paradisaic"..."? That's not nice.I'd have thought my analogy to be obvious, but I'll now make it painfully obvious...The word "paradise" is a noun, just as "chocolate" is a noun (in my example, a specific ingredient which the FDA defines).The word "paradisaic" is an adjective which means "like paradise", just as "choclaty" (excuse the typo) is an adjective which means "like chocolate".If I may... is User:Jeffro77 actually arguing that "paradise earth" is an incorrect use of the word "paradise"?--AuthorityTam (talk) 12:55, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Your comparison of the noun "paradise" with the adjective/trademark "choclaty" suggests that you don't understand the correct usage of the word paradise. If you don't understand, then my statement is not "not nice" at all, and if you do understand, then your statement about choclaty is irrelevant. I am therefore stating, quite plainly, that JWs use the term "paradise earth" in a jargonistic fashion (indeed as you said, "overwhelmingly"). I am also stating that paradise is not an adjective, and that "paradisaic" is an adjective that means not only "like paradise" but "of, relating to or like paradise". The statement "paradise earth" is probably fine in informal or poetic usage, but it is indeed not strictly correct, and there is no reason to defer to that wording unless quoting an original source.--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:44, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be better to park the condescension elsewhere. It's unproductive.Actually... I compared "chocolaty" with "paradisaic"; both are adjectives.Also, I compared "chocolate" with "paradise"; both are nouns but also both reflect the key quality of the noun which they precede.I'll note that I don't recall insisting that "paradise" is an adjective. --AuthorityTam (talk) 22:02, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Evidently, your confusion stems from your mistaken idea that "chocolate" (in the expression "chocolate cake") is a noun, whereas in such usage it is an adjective. Paradise doesn't function as an adjective in this manner, as you will find if you consult a dictionary.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:04, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Please, let's drop the insistences* that I'm 'unfamiliar with paradisaic',* that I "don't understand the correct usage of the word paradise",* that I suffer from "confusion", and* that I harbor a 'mistaken idea that chocolate is a noun'. Please.Really, any ingredient (or rather, any noun) could be juxtaposed with "cake". Readers are likely familiar with carrot cake, pound cake, cheese cake, angel cake, etc.Similarly, it's silly to pretend that a particular noun cannot be grammatically juxtaposed with "planet". It seems unsurprising to imagine a writer referring to, for example, a "jungle planet", a "desert planet", a "water planet", a "carbon planet", a "gas planet", an "ocean planet", a "treasure planet", etc.It seems odd to pretend some grammatical disqualification for "paradise planet" (or, more to the point, "paradise earth").Do editor objections to the term "paradise earth" really reflect an evenhanded application of English grammar?Googlebooks lists over 600 books which use the term "paradise earth", including several encyclopedias discussing but not explicitly quoting Jehovah's Witnesses. If an editor here has an argument he believes outweighs the preponderance of scholarly examples, that editor should present his argument soon. --AuthorityTam (talk) 13:39, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems to me that a fair number of those 600 books are either Watch Tower publications or books quoting them. Many more do not include that phrase; the list includes books with the two words separated by commas or full points. LTSally (talk) 13:46, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The alleged support from the Google Books search is indeed unreliable. Many are quotes from JW literature. Most are instances separated by punctuation. Over 100 are repeated quotes of a poetic "Fruits of more than paradise; Earth by angel feet be trod". Many are repeated titles, such as "EARTH A PARADISE Earth a paradise". Others are entirely different grammatical structures, such as "What a paradise Earth is!"--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:26, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

text: The examples in the form of "-cake" are all common examples. It has not been demonstrated that "paradise earth" is in common usage, indeed the opposite has been shown to be the case. Comparison of "paradise earth" with scientific classifications of planetary composition are also dissimilar comparisons. In particular, one might see desert planet (a science-fiction oriented article), but one still wouldn't normally write desert Arrakis, which would be the analogous form of paradise earth.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:35, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The WTS's own peculiar use of language gives no requirement for Wikipedia articles to use the same terms. "Happifying" events frequently referred to in WT literature come to mind. There are many more of them. LTSally (talk) 02:57, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

text: No one said that "paradise" was "peculiar use of language". It was the ungrammatical structure of the primarily jargon term "paradise earth" to which the objection was raised.--Jeffro77 (talk) 15:12, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

text: AuthorityTam here misunderstands the difference between a 'noun used as a modifier' and a 'standard adjective'. In descriptions like 'carrot cake' or 'gas planet' (AuthorityTam's term, usually called a 'gas giant'), a noun is used as a modifier, and when spoken, stress is placed equally on both words. In the JW expression 'paradise earth', this is not the way it is used; instead the stress is placed on 'earth', with 'paradise' used (in a non-standard manner) as a standard adjective. The inferred term is 'an earth that is a paradise'. No one would say 'a cake that is a carrot' or 'a planet that is a gas', because 'carrot cake' and 'gas planet' use the first noun as a modifier, not a standard adjective.--Jeffro77 (talk) 23:56, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

text: You're missing the obvious. Paradise is a noun. Paradisaic is the adjective. Just rewrite the sentence to avoid the description. LTSally (talk) 21:50, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It is unclear why AuthorityTam has decided to re-hash this. In any case, the argument relies on a mistaken view that because some nouns also function as adjectives (as a modifier), that all nouns can be used in the same way. It simply is not the case. Per LTSally, rephrase as necessary.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:51, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The existence of hundreds of instances of the term in verifiable references is sufficient to allow the same term to be used in Wikipedia articles. I've elucidated as I have as a courtesy to other editors, some of whom have been less than courteous.--AuthorityTam (talk) 01:19, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: As previously explained, the list actually contradicts your argument. LTSally (talk) 01:22, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Per AuthorityTam's desire for elucidation, this is copied from above: The alleged support from the Google Books search is indeed unreliable. Many are quotes from JW literature. Most are instances separated by punctuation. Over 100 are repeated quotes of a poetic "Fruits of more than paradise; Earth by angel feet be trod". Many are repeated titles, such as "EARTH A PARADISE Earth a paradise". Others are entirely different grammatical structures, such as "What a paradise Earth is!"--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:19, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

text: And why is there a wiktionary link to the mundane word, elucidate? (See rhetorical.)--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:23, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

text: As previously stated, we don't need to defer to JW jargon. However, I don't think anyone has objected to "earthly paradise".--Jeffro77 (talk) 15:10, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paradise earth 

message: It is the Bible rather than Jehovah's Witnesses which uses "paradise" rather than "paradisaic".
Jehovah's Witnesses use the term "paradise earth" because that term includes "paradise", which is a specific theologically significant biblical term.
* (Isaiah 51:3) Jehovah will...make her wilderness like Eden and her desert plain like the garden [“Paradise,” LXXSy] of Jehovah.
* (Luke 23:43) [Jesus] said to him: “Truly I tell you today, You will be with me in Paradise.”
* (Revelation 2:7) To him that conquers I will grant to eat of the tree of life, which is in the paradise of God.
Most English Bibles read "paradise"; no Bible to my knowledge read "paradisaic [place]".
Imagine that a multicourse meal is described as including "chocolate". If "chocolate cake" (with the primary ingredient being chocolate) is delivered, that might perhaps be different from what was expected but the recipients would likely agree that they had in fact received a dessert of "chocolate"; by contrast, a delivery of merely "chocolaty cake", which was allegedly "like chocolate" and had no actual chocolate ingredients, would not satisfy what was promised.Just as the term "chocolaty" is sometimes used specifically to allow the complete absence of actual chocolate, the term "paradisaic" arguably implies something pointedly less than actual paradise.--AuthorityTam (talk) 18:41, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You're missing the obvious. Paradise is a noun. Paradisaic is the adjective. Just rewrite the sentence to avoid the description. LTSally (talk) 21:50, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It is unclear why AuthorityTam has decided to re-hash this. In any case, the argument relies on a mistaken view that because some nouns also function as adjectives (as a modifier), that all nouns can be used in the same way. It simply is not the case. Per LTSally, rephrase as necessary.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:51, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The existence of hundreds of instances of the term in verifiable references is sufficient to allow the same term to be used in Wikipedia articles. I've elucidated as I have as a courtesy to other editors, some of whom have been less than courteous.--AuthorityTam (talk) 01:19, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: As previously explained, the list actually contradicts your argument. LTSally (talk) 01:22, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Per AuthorityTam's desire for elucidation, this is copied from above: The alleged support from the Google Books search is indeed unreliable. Many are quotes from JW literature. Most are instances separated by punctuation. Over 100 are repeated quotes of a poetic "Fruits of more than paradise; Earth by angel feet be trod". Many are repeated titles, such as "EARTH A PARADISE Earth a paradise". Others are entirely different grammatical structures, such as "What a paradise Earth is!"--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:19, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

text: And why is there a wiktionary link to the mundane word, elucidate? (See rhetorical.)--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:23, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

text: As previously stated, we don't need to defer to JW jargon. However, I don't think anyone has objected to "earthly paradise".--Jeffro77 (talk) 15:10, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Chocolate

message: The Article Lead doesn't quite seem like a summary of the article . It provides information not found in the rest of the article. Perhaps it should be modified and used as a third new section and then have a new article lead written in on paragraph as per WP:LEADLENGTH that summarizes the information of the article. By doing this we could avoid the large amount of citations in the lead, which makes it look choppy at best. I think it would be aesthetically better if we limit that. It is possible to write the lead with minimal citations as per WP:CITELEAD. Any thoughts? Fordx12 (talk) 19:03, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Article Lead 

message: I have again reverted Willietell's recent wordy additions. The edits were improper/redundant for the following reasons:
Lead
# Removal of 'being part of God's organisation' is dishonest, as this is quite clearly indicated in JW publications as a 'requirement' for 'salvation'.
# The fact that JWs believe that salvation can be 'lost' if they 'do not continually obey Jesus' is concisely stated in the statement that they do not believe in 'eternal security'. The lengthy addition is unnecessarily wordy for the lead.
Basis
# The fact that JWs believe God is the 'source of salvation' (as a 'gift' from God) is already clearly indicated in the same paragraph. (And the expression 'Jehovah God' is jargonistic and grammatically poor.)
# Salvation purportedly being based on the 'ransom' is directly stated in the first sentence of the same paragraph.
# Salvation being based on 'free will' and not 'forced' is already indicated in the second paragraph of the same section.
# Elements about people showing 'ungodly' behaviour and 'not benefitting' is not part of the 'basis' for salvation, and is covered in the other sheep' and 'great crowd section.
Please do not continue to add redundant material. You may notice that the What is Salvation link has been added to the article's External links section.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:10, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed redundancy 

message: As it is likely that Willietell will object to the assertion that a significant amount of his added text is a copy-and-paste from source, the differences are provided here:
:Jesus Christ identified a first requirement when he said in prayer to his Father: “This means everlasting life, their taking inaccurate knowledge of you, the only true God,Jehovah and of the one whom you sent forth, Jesus Christ.” (John 17:3) Knowledge of God and of Jesus Christ. This "knowledge" includes the knowledge of God’s purposes regarding the earth and of Christ’s role as earth’s new Kking. Will you take in such knowledge by studying the Bible? Many have found the second requirement more difficult. It is Additionally they believe it is vital for salvation to obey God’s laws, yes, to conform one’s life to the moral requirements set out in the Bible. This includes, including refraining from a debauched, immoral way of lifelifestyle.—1 Corinthians 6:9, 10; 1 Peter 4:3, 4. ... The fourth requirement is connected with God.  They also believe that loyalty to Jehovah is necessary to be "saved" and that Jehovah requires that prospective subjects of his Kkingdom support his government by loyally advocating his Kkingdom rule to others. Jesus Christ explained: “This  through the preaching of "the good news of the kingdom will be preached in all the inhabited earth.” 
The text has been removed not only because it is plagiarised (with just a little bit of rephrasing), but also because the tone of the source is not suitable in a Wikipedia article when not acknowledged as a quote.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:04, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The source for the information was clearly given, your accusation of plagiarism is completely unfounded, however if you wish I can rework the edit and insert quotation marks to make identifying the source easier for you. Willietell (talk) 00:08, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The current wording is an adequate explanation. I agree with Jeffro's comment that the wording (with phrases referring to "Christ’s role as earth’s new king", "a debauched, immoral lifestyle" and "loyally advocating his kingdom rule to others through the preaching of 'the good news of the kingdom'") read as if they are from a religious tract and lack the simple and concise facts that are appropriate for the language of an encyclopedia. BlackCab (TALK) 01:07, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:PARAPHRASE states, "Close paraphrasing is the superficial modification of material from another source. Editors should generally summarize source material in their own words, adding inline citations as required by the sourcing policy." It is not sufficient to modify only small portions of copied text and present it as unquoted article prose, even if you have cited the source. This is especially the case where the tone of the source is not suitable for an encyclopedia (such as the examples indicated by BlackCab above). Despite your claim that my 'accusation' is 'unfounded', I have clearly demonstrated that your text is very close to the cited material and not a 'summary in your own words'. The relevant guidelines indicate that close-paraphrasing without in-text attribution (not simply a citation) constitutes plagiarism. In any case, the extended preachy passage was of little benefit to the article.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:52, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

text: Another problem is that although we can use primary sources for some things, we should ideally report on what secondary sources (if any) say.  We should neither interpret the material ourselves (original research or synthesis), nor present the beliefs in the language the primary source would use...  Of course, the result could still include things like the tenets of those beliefs, i.e. a mention of some biblical verses which are considered important and information on the interpretation of those by the society is acceptable, including relevant quotes.  But the explanations, the summary of it, must ideally be derived from a seconday source (I do see some of these are currently used).  PaleoNeonate (talk) 20:45, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Excessive copying from source 

message: In the section "the anointed", the first two sentences can be interpreted in an orthodox WTS way, but the third sentence throws everything off.  "They believe that most of those are already in heaven ...." "those remaining alive on earth who will be immediately resurrected to heaven when they die." Source please! Or does the WTS teach that they will be resurrected, along with everyone else, and currently do not exist (if they have died)? --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 12:48, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The doctrines related to it have been modified from time to time, partly because there were so few anointed remaining while the "end" was still not occuring. Development of Jehovah's Witnesses doctrine mentions some of those changes.  This makes it tricky to summarize and the paragraph could probably be improved.  As for your last question, I think that the belief is still that the anointed immediately go to heaven to serve as judges when they die.  You may already know but if not, the majority (non anointed) hope for a future paradise on Earth (there is also the millenarism). So the others cannot be resurected until the beginning of that period.  There is some redundancy among the various JW related articles (see the infobox) so possibly that the sources you are looking for are already out there elsewhere.  — PaleoNeonate — 14:46, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah... the context of the question at the Development article now makes a little more sense; if only I'd come to this page first. The detail about resurrection of the 'anointed' starting 'after 1914', 'before 1935', and 'immediately when they die after that' could be added to the article, but would not warrant more than a single sentence unless there are suitable secondary sources discussing it in more detail.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:18, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  where are the anointed now?