Great QFR, really stupid answer from WT (page 5)

ringo5

I do believe that examples of stupid answers from the Tower like this serve the same purpose that David's killing the husband did: to protect the organization from suffering from its corruption.

I think you may be reading a little to much into this. There really can be no satisfactory answer to this QFR while maintaining a belief in an infallible bible.

All similar accounts( morally unjustifiable) in the old testament represent a difficulty for fundy's to explain. Any apologetic arguments they make, only show a lack of coherence with a claimed superior moral code that they like to believe the bible teaches.

Hermano

In other words they have no f***ing idea.

Bingo!

dark angle

this is absoluuuuuutely abbbbbsurb, out of the world, reason defying, super silly answer or idea i've ever read!!!!!

avengers

Besides, as an uncircumcised, unnamed infant it had not as yet developed any personality pattern or consciousness so as to appreciate life.

As long as you don't name your kid it's alright for it to die.

barf, barf, barf.

The Watchtower is full of love.

Andy

Rabbit

How can Deuteronomy 24:16, which says, "Children should not be put to death on account of fathers," be harmonized with the fact that the offspring of the adulterous relation between David and Bath-sheba died due to their sin, as shown in 2 Samuel 12:14?—J. B., U.S.A.

The law, as stated at Deuteronomy 24:16, shows that fathers were not to be put to death for their sons nor were sons to be put to death for their fathers.

If you believe the Bible is literal and God's word (to me it's a fairy tale) then, the hypocrisy shouldn't be surprising. *We* are all supposed to be Adam & Eve's children, right ? They sinned, right ? God punished all their descendants for those sins, then, murdered Noah's world, right ?

So, He's in a planned murderous rage again. So-o...as the scripture says, "There's nothing new...blah-blah-blah."

Rabbit *sigh*

TJ - iAmCleared2Land

Besides, as an uncircumcised, unnamed infant it had not as yet developed any personality pattern or consciousness so as to appreciate life.

STUPID REASONING!! Think about it: are they suggesting that once you name a child, or cut of it's foreskin, it suddenly "gains appreciation of life" and a "personality pattern" and now it would be wrong to kill it? Insanity.

Great QFR, really stupid answer from WT