I did read your comments and considered them carefully – I think I understood them but I feel some of them still did not answer my questions. I don’t have time to write a full response so I’ll just address the general points you made.
First of all, you recommendation that I seek a bible; I don’t see the point because any questions I asked in a bible study, I would just be referred to the Watchtower literature any way. Why not just refer me to the literature that answers my questions, yourself? Why can I not get the full picture from Watchtower literature, what would I be told about Watchtower doctrine in person that is not in print?
Regarding my question, who will be killed at Armageddon? On one hand you say that only Jehovah’s Witness will survive:
"During the final period of the ancient world that perished in the Flood, Noah was a faithful preacher of righteousness. (2 Peter 2:5) In these last days of the present system of things, Jehovah’s people are making known God’s righteous standards and are declaring good news about the possibility of surviving into the new world. (2 Peter 3:9-13) Just as Noah and his God-fearing family were preserved in the ark, survival of individuals today depends on their faith and their loyal association with the earthly part of Jehovah’s universal organization." Correct.
(Watchtower’s words in italics, you words in bold)
But on the other hand, when pressed, you use vague language and say that only ‘wicked’ people will be killed and that ‘good’ people and ‘people with the right heart condition’ will be saved. The Watchtower obviously considers only Jehovah’s Witnesses to be ‘good’ or ‘with the right heart condition’ but do you think the same? I’m not sure, it is hard to know from your comments.
To avoid these ambiguities I have three straight forward questions that I would appreciate three straight forward answers to.
Question 1
The Watchtower literature I have quoted quite clearly teaches that only the ‘great crowd’ will survive Armageddon and to be a member of the ‘great crowd’ a person has to be associated with the Jehovah’s Witnesses and actively involved in the preaching work.
Either;
A) the Watchtower teaches that only Jehovah’s Witness will survive Armageddon and you agree with this doctrine; or
B) the Watchtower teaches that only Jehovah’s Witness will survive Armageddon and you disagree with this doctrine; or
C) you do not believe that the Watchtower teaches that only Jehovah’s Witnesses will survive Armageddon
Which of the above statements is true; A,B or C?
If A is true then you were being dishonest last year when you said your understanding was different than mine.
If B is true then you may be on the road to apostasy:
If C is true then you have to be able to show why the Watchtower quotes I provided do not say what they appear to say or deomonstrate the they are 'old light'.
Question 2
You say that you can’t comment on how many will die at Armageddon but the Watchtower’s teachings imply that billions will die. These are the facts:
A) The Watchtower teaches that only the ‘great crowd’ survive Armageddon and to be in the great crowd you have to be a Jehovah’s Witness
B) There are over 7 billion people in the world
C) There approximately 7.5 million Jehovah’s Witnesses in the world
If all the above statements are true then the Watchtower teaches that God will kill billions of people during Armageddon if it happens in the near future. Are any of the above statements, A, B or C, false?
Question 3
The Watchtower indirectly teaches that billions of children will be killed in Armageddon. These are the facts:
A) The Watchtower teaches that the children of those who are not in the 'great crowd' will be killed in Armageddon because 'parents are responsible for their children's spiritual upbringing.
B) There are approximately 2 billion children in the world whose parents are not in the ‘great crowd’.
If both statements are above are true then the Watchtower teaches that billions of children will be murdered during Armageddon. Are either of the above statements, A or B, false?
Regarding you justification for Armageddon and the death of billions.
First of all, you illustration is not analogous because an operation is conducted on an individual whereas Armageddon will be delivered on a societal/global level. Never the less, if we take your illustration and assume Jehovah is the surgeon then his cure would entail removing 99.999% of the patient’s body despite the fact he has the ability to cure the patient without invasive intervention at all. Would you go to such a surgeon? I would not.
You mention the 'suffering in this world and mans cruelty to man' - can’t you see, 99.999% of those suffering in the world today will be killed in Armageddon - as it is taught by the Watchtower. This is like curing famine by killing all starving people.
Regarding you justification for the murder of 2 billion children, you still do not seem to understand what I am saying. I can’t help thinking you are intentionally missing the point because you don’t want to face up to the fact that, deep down you know the idea Jehovah killing infants is abhorrent.
Again, I agree that parents are responsible for their children, I never said otherwise. Yes, parents are responsible for their children but this does not make punishing children for their parents crimes, right – you admitted this yourself:
“If you were found guilty of murder by secular authorities would it be morally justified that not only were you imprisoned for the offence but your children as well? No To extend this analogy further; imagine you lived in a state which exercised capital punishment. Would it be morally justified that, if convicted of murder, your children (even if infants) were executed right before you? No What if the crime punishable by death was not just murder but failing to be a member of a particular group or organisation that most people did not realise they were supposed to a member of”
(my words in italics, your words in bold)
Now, take that illustration and replace ‘secular authorities’ with ‘God’
“If you were found guilty of murder by secular GOD, would it be morally justified that not only were you punished for the offence but your children as well? No ….further; imagine you lived in a world where God exercised capital punishment. Would it be morally justified that, if convicted of murder, your children (even if infants) were executed right before you by GOD? No What if the crime punishable by death was not just murder but failing to be a member of a particular group or organisation that most people did not realise they were supposed to a member of”
It does not matter who the authority is or what the crime is, the principle is the same - punishing children for their parent's crimes is wrong. I think you know this but cant admit it because it would mean admitting you think God is wrong.
Until you can explain to me why it would be right for secular authorities to execute children for their parent’s crimes you will never convince me of the justness of God doing the same.
How would you feel if secular authorities prosecuted you for a crime committed by your long dead ancestor? Would you consider this fair? No, I doubt it very much because you have no control over who you ancestors happen to be and no responsibility for their actions. Like wise, Children have no control over who their parents happen to be and have no responsibility for their parent’s actions. I don't think I can make it any clearer.
You mention that Jehovah does not want to kill anyone and that is why the preaching work of the Watchtower is so important. After over a century, the watchtower, supposedly an organisation supported by God, has a membership representing just 0.001% of the global population. If God doesn’t want to kill anyone then he is pretty ineffective at preventing himself from having to kill anyone.
