Nice response
Elder father sent me an email about Feb 2012 WT - my resposne
by TheStumbler 97 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
sd-7
Nice response! But if you're trying to avoid being labeled an apostate, you better not send it, certainly not to an elder. If the plan is to keep peace, you'll have to smile and nod.
However, even as a Witness, and long, long before any 'apostate material' came my way, I too felt a strong moral aversion to the thought that children, millions of them--billions--would die at the hands of the God I was worshipping. I found the genocidal exploits of the Old Testament to be rather disturbing, as well. I wondered how any of that could be justifiable, and if in fact it was, it said some rather disturbing things about Jehovah. That gaping hole in their logic eventually became a black hole that swallowed all belief in the JW religion.
But if you think it's safe, this is a good, solid reply to send.
--sd-7
-
TheStumbler
Originally I included this but decided it was not really pertinent:
The first page of the article attempts to dispel popular misconceptions about Armageddon.
Watchtower states that when ‘Armageddon’ is used to described global armed conflicts, it implies:
Humans have ultimate control of the future of the earth and all life on it.
Watchtower states on the same page then when ‘Armageddon’ is used to describe natural disasters, it implies:
Armageddon is a random event that indiscriminately kills innocent victims. There is little is little you can do to protect yourself from it
How can Armageddon imply that one event is manmade and another event is random natural phenomenon? If Armageddon can be used to refer to both manmade and natural events, then evidently there is nothing inherent about the use of the word that implies the cause must be manmade or natural. These ‘implications’ the article speaks of are pure fabrication.
Armageddon is popularly used today as a metaphor to describe any event, either real or hypothetical, that is global in scale and results in mass loss of life. That is all.
The Watchtower, on page, explains the meaning of ‘Armageddon’ in the Bible is:
‘symbolic…[it is] associated with a confrontation, one in which two powerful forces collide…The prophecy in Revelation speaks of a time in the near future when Satan and the demons will motivate human governments to assemble their armies, this issuing a defiant challenge to God’s interest. The attack will result in the death of millions of people when God defeats the invaders’
‘Even so, there are at least two major differences between previous attacks and the one associated with Armageddon. First, the scale of the attack will be global’.
So, ‘Armageddon’ in the Bible is ‘associated’ with a global event that will result in mass loss of life. Natural disasters and nuclear wars could also result in global mass loss of life. It is this primary meaning that people refer to when they use the word ‘Armageddon’ to describe current non-biblical events.
The watchtower makes the semantic argument that ‘ the Bible contradicts many popular concepts of Armageddon’ because ‘Armageddon’ is popularly used to describe events that are contrary to biblical end times prophecy. Technically this is correct but when someone uses the phrase ‘nuclear Armageddon’ they are probably not referring to fulfillment of biblical prophecy but the likely outcome of a nuclear exchange between two super powers. You may as well argue that the expression ‘the far corners of the earth’ is not strictly geographically accurate.
It is not clear why Watchtower is so concerned that the ‘Armageddon’ has drifted away from its specific meaning in the Bible and now has different meanings when used in different contexts.
-
TheStumbler
@SD-7,
I was never baptised. I'm fairily confident this will not get me shunned. My dad and I have had fairly honest exchanges previously. To be honest, I think he sometimes enjoys hearing my take on things because he often asks me questions.
Also, this conversation ended over 6 months ago and he sent this link out of the blue. I think me providing a response is reasonably
-
sd-7
Oh. Well if you're not baptized, have at it!
--sd-7
-
Black Sheep
I would change most of your statements to questions.
He hasn't got the point until he reaches the conclusions himself. Try not to ask leading question with yes/no answers. Ask them so that he has to explain the anomaly.
Any question that he danced around before is a goody and he should have to confront it. He should feel guilty for every tactic he uses to not answer it. He has given you a good topic. Stick with it. Don't change it and don't let him change it until he tells you what you wanted to tell him.
Cheers
Chris
-
TheStumbler
Thanks, Black Sheep
Could you give me examples of which statements I should turn into questions?
I think its a good idea but I make a lot of statements and if I ask any questions I would want them to be focused. Which statements in particular do you think would be most effective as questions?
-
TheStumbler
Something like this?
The facts are;
The Watchtower teaches that only JWs will survive Armageddon
The Watchtower teaches that the Children of those who will not survive Armageddon will also be killed
There are approximately 2.2 bllion children in the world.
There are only a few million children of JWs in the world.
My question is - considering the above, how many children will be killed in Armageddon?
-
TheStumbler
Also, in my previous email to him on this subject which was in MArch 2011 (I think)
I wrote:
The Watchtower teaching on this seems fairly unequivocal to me, only Jehovah’s witnesses will survive Armageddon and even the babies of worldly people will perish.
his reply was:
Your understanding is different to mine on this matter
What is everyone's take on this, is he being dishonest to me, dishonest with himself or do you think he actually believes that the Watchtower does not teach that only JWs will survive Armageddon?
If his understanding is different than the Watchtowers doesn't this make him apostate?
What did you all believe when you were in regarding this question?
-
blondie
Growing up as a jw child I remember this part of Ezekiel (probably because there was an "Ezekiel" book that we studied at the book study). The mark was considered baptism as a jw. This still teaching still prevails as the 2007 quote shows.
*** w07 7/1 p. 13 Highlights From the Book of Ezekiel—I ***
9:3-6. Acquiring the mark—the evidence that we are dedicated, baptized servants of God and that we have the Christian personality—is essential for surviving the "great tribulation." (Matthew 24:21) Anointed Christians, represented by the man with the secretary’s inkhorn, are taking the lead in doing the marking work, that is, the Kingdom-preaching and disciple-making work. If we want to retain our mark, we must zealously help them in this work.
*** w96 1/15 p. 17 par. 9 Jehovah’s Sheep Need Tender Care ***As an unbaptized publisher progresses spiritually, he may make a dedication to God in prayer and want to be baptized. (Compare Mark 1:9-11.) He should make his desire for baptism known to the congregation’s presiding overseer, who will arrange for elders to review with the publisher the questions on pages 175 to 218 of Organized to Accomplish Our Ministry. The four parts into which the questions are divided may be covered in three sessions by three different elders if possible. If they agree that the unbaptized publisher has a reasonable understanding of Bible teachings and qualifies in other ways, they will tell him that he may be baptized. As a result of his dedication and baptism, he becomes ‘marked’ for salvation.—Ezekiel 9:4-6.
*** km 10/87 p. 8 par. 7 Help Others to Dedication and Baptism ***Only those ‘marked’ for salvation will survive into Jehovah’s new system. (Ezek. 9:2-6) How happy those who submit to this ‘marking’ for survival will be because of their dedicated relationship with Jehovah God, as symbolized by water baptism!