I don't quite get why they would paint themselves into a corner like this after they had already redefined "the generation" in 1995 in a way that would give them indefinite leeway to put off Armageddon.
I think their bullshit explanation in '95 really boggled the minds of alot of the rank and file simply because there was no end date give. My father was totally thrown when he realized at that moment that he was probably going to die after all and it bothered him a great deal. It wasn't just the 'growing old and dying' part, but they also f**ked him out of his pension that he was "never going to need".
With this noo and disproved lite, I'm sure it will still raise alot of eyebrows but many of the braindead will reason: 'Well, the youngest member of the Governing Body is 55 so that means that Armageddon can't be any more than 30 or 35 years away! Besides, I can't see that this wicked System of things could possibly last another 30 years" and they'll continue on. 30 years is still a long way off, and the last remaining members of the GB will be long dead by the time another feeble explanation is given as to why the Big A hasn't come to destroy all non-Witlesses yet, but it's better than no end-date at all.
After all, the religion's very foundation was build on the idea of an end-date which has always been 'right around the corner'. Those early fools who followed Charles Russell said in the late 1800's that things we just soooooo bad that they didn't see how the world could survive until 1914. They're all dead and buried now and not one single thing that Ol' Charlie ever said came true. Since an end date is the central theme to this religion, they can't have an open-end date now after 130 years of trying to scare the hell out of people by crying 'wolf'.
wannabefree said: If I can remain in until the article is studied at the KH it would be fun to comment at the meeting and ask "am I the only one bothered by this? am I the only one that thinks this is a bunch of nonsense? this doesn't make sense" ... do you think if we did this at meetings others would reason? I suppose not, and it would most likely be the final opportunity to make a comment.
That would be hilarious and me thinks you should do it. Actually, I remember when we were studying the Greatest Man book and what really irritated me was when they tried claiming that Jesus did not try asking God to release him from what was about to happen when he said "let this cup pass from me." They tried claiming that he was merely concerned with 'bringing reproach on Jehovah by dying as a criminal.' I pointed out at the bookstudy that in another chapter, it clearly stated that "this cup" was the torture and execution that he was going to endure, so obviously he was asking not be put through it as it (understandably) terrified him. The room went dead quiet when I said this and it was like everyone started waking up from a sleep. What I said made sense but it went against what was printed in this particular paragraph and so I must be wrong. Anyway, afterwards, I had 2 or 3 people come up to me and thank me for having the courage to state that, because they thought the same thing, but they "didn't want to be seen as going against what the Organization said."
Actually, I think it would be hilarious to go to the KH when this Craptower article is discussed and during this paragraph, just put up your hand, wait for the microphone and simply say "You have GOT to be joking. Where in the bible does it say that Jesus was talking about 'overlapping' generations?' and watch what happens.