A simple rebuttal to the recent 'Last Minute Repentance' change.

by nicolaou 26 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  nicolaou

  For decades, critics have pointed out the unfairness of God slaughtering billions in a future Armageddon who never even met a JW much less heard their life-saving message. (Remember the contortions around the collective responsibility of nations?) Also, why do babies and children have to die simply because their parents rejected the Witnesses?

  So now we have a new doctrine which says that folks can change their minds at the very last minute and still be saved. It won't matter if you rejected the 'Kingdom Message' previously or even if you'd never heard it - God can judge your heart and you can still be saved. Awww. Whilst senior JW's may resent this doctrinal update it's presented as a more reasonable interpretation by the Org' who, with faux modesty, can claim "we just don't know".

  The problem is, we DO know.

  God has already killed folks who'd never heard of him including babies and children (I've posted plenty on this and won't rehash it all again here). So when your JW relative tells you how this new light is a more loving provision from Jehovah just remind them of what Jehovah has done in the past.

  We wouldn't take the word of a serial killer or abuser that they're going to change their ways in future much less the word of a PR team who profit from them. No, we judge what a person is likely to do in the future from what they have already done in the past.

  God's past is recorded in detail, we have his crime sheet and a record of all his past offences. Why believe his lawyers now?
• 

  Mikejw

  It is clear they are saying there is no difference between those alive at Armageddon to everyone who has died throughout all of history. This is very very clearly the new light,

  there will be a resurrection of the unrighteous and if you are alive or die before it makes no difference

  it is stupid new light, but it is definitely what they say. The earth is no way large enough for billions to survive Armageddon and then for many more billions to be resurrected.
• 

  joey jojo

  I seem to remember the wt saying that if every person who has ever lived were resurrected and we all lived on earth together, we would have about an acre (4000m2) each.

  It depends which input you use but I did a quick bit of research. (For what its worth)

  Estimated total humans who have ever lived: Over 100 billion

  Total usable land ( no mountains or desert): 15 billion acres.

  Total land each: 0.15 acres, or about 600m2.

  If this model is right, would that even be enough land to grow food for each person?

  We would still have to live in cities. I dont think that is the dream the WT is selling.

  Source: https://www.visualcapitalist.com/cp/how-many-humans-have-ever-lived/#:~:text=With%20this%20context%20and%20timeframe,humans%20that%20have%20ever%20lived.
• 

  slimboyfat

  I remember this being discussed in the late 1990s. They pointed out (I think at a convention) that the difference between dying in the flood and dying at Armageddon is you may get a resurrection if you died in the flood but not if you died at Armageddon. Therefore the fact children of unbelievers died in the flood (so the reasoning went) does not tell us whether or not children of unbelievers may survive Armageddon.
• 

  TonusOH

  The weird thing is that they really don't have to speculate about stuff like whether or not people who died in the flood would be resurrected. What difference does it make to admit there is no clear explanation, and that the matter is in god's hands? But, no! They have to offer explanations for things they can't know, which they will likely have to revisit and possibly disavow later.

  It's like they recognize how much power they have over the following, and they feel that it will go to waste if they don't use it, so they use it frivolously just for the thrill. The possible long-term consequences don't matter to them, because they are certain there is no long-term to worry about.
• 

  Sea Breeze

  @Nicolaou

  For decades, critics have pointed out the unfairness of God slaughtering billions in a future Armageddon who never even met a JW much less heard their life-saving message.

  You accept a couple of WT assumptions:

  The Anti-Christ is the one doing all the killing in the GT. Jesus shows up at the end and rescues what's left of mankind. The WT doesn't have a biblical life saving message becasue they require that you reject the Mediator and every Lord's Supper ceremony. Their message in one of death.... you own, in order to wipe out your sin. It is the perfect religion for carnal man.

  We wouldn't take the word of a serial killer or abuser that they're going to change their ways in future

  Why should he change his ways? There’s nothing wrong with serial killers if atheism is true, there’s nothing wrong with anything, and atheists have no real justification for complaining about how the world is, much less expressing judgment on anyone, especially someone they claim doesn't exist.
  
• 

  TonusOH

  Sea Breeze: There’s nothing wrong with serial killers if atheism is true

  It seems that you are saying that murder is not inherently wrong, that it's only wrong because god specifically said it was. Are you saying you can't think of a reason why it's not good to kill indiscriminately? Any reason, at all?
• 

  Vidiot

  Sea Breeze - “…There’s nothing wrong with serial killers if atheism is true…”

  Are you fucking kidding me?
• 

  nicolaou

  That's interesting Slim'. I'm sure I remember being taught that anyone killed in the Flood (or as with Korah and others executed directly by Jehovah) that there would be no resurrection as God's judgements are perfect and everlasting. I stand to be corrected though.

  Either way it sort of makes my point. You can only really know a person by what they've done, not what they say they're going to do.
• 

  nicolaou

  Are you fucking kidding me?

  He's not kidding Vidiot. If people said about Jews and Muslims the sort of things that Sea Breeze says about atheists they'd be labelled antisemitic or Islamaphobic.

  Not sure why his particular brand of bigotry is tolerated.