Posts by billythekid46

122

Am I wrong or right please clarify if you know

by Skeptical78 in

i recently became aware of the new light.

please correct me if i'm wrong, but doesn't this new light concerning 1914 means that the wt have been preaching the wrong doctrine for decades?

.

billythekid46

Let me start by saying, that I am grateful to have been part of this debate; it was never my intention to be drawn into one. I entered into this site to learn what you as teachers of the truth of Christ have enlighten the younger generation of people who have yet to learn the gospel of Christ. My purpose was not to critize anyone’s view points, but I quickly found out through rebukes from you that would not be possible. I found a need to correct the assumptions many of you have placed in the minds of your readers that are incorrect. I then wondered what might be the motivation behind this. By the most part, I began to understand the deep hatred you hold towards the WT. Many of you by whatever reason have been disfellowshipped, reproved, publicly or privately admonished. Your response to my rendition sparked an insight by which you hold the WT personally responsible. In my attempts to circumvent those thoughts, I posed my question to you all. The bible was inspired by God, and it is Gods means of ownership that through Christ we owe our servitude to him. The WT is a tool to fulfill that servitude. The GB is the faithful Witness the Discreet, nothing more, and we are all the slave class. From the 30 years I was a Witness, I never thought of them much more than that. The servitude was beholding to us, to gather knowledge with holy inspecation through prayer. Some of you don’t believe the GB can be such a member. However keep in mind that through holy inspiration the bible was written. What other religions hold such understanding. Islam through the works of the Prophet Muhammad has that theory. The Quran is based on the premise that Muhammad spoke directly to God, and inspired him to write it. You have the works of Joseph Smith that professed to have spoken to Jesus and inspired him to write the book of Mormon. You have the Roman Catholic Church that even today truly believe the Pope through prayer in a room laced in gold has personal conversations with God. Many Protestants sects believe that speaking in tongues give them a direct channel to God. Some of you personalized your removal. That’s understandable as it is with human nature, no one likes being kicked out of anything. Disfellowshipping, defrocking, disassociating, shunning, etc. are found in many religions. This is not unique to Jw. The Advents, Mormons, Scientologist, Amish, Evangelist, Catholics, etc. In some liberal religions they simply tell you, get out and don’t come back. Through Gods holy words it is meant to have you redeem yourself and prevent you from falling again into temptation. Did Jesus not tell Mary the prostitute sin no more? He also told the elders and people that wanted to punish her, he who is without sin cast the first stone. There are however more irrational shunning that are still practiced today. A Muslim that finds Christianity will be killed for his blasphemies conversion. These inserts were to answer some of the many questions that were posted in my behalf. Back to topic. I will bring it to you in parts.

Russell did not proclaim that 1914 was the end of the world or Armageddon as some of you foolishly indicate, he was drawing parallels on Christ Kingship in heaven verses the notion that Jewish people even today believe of an earthly New Jerusalem verses a celestial one. As stated before. George Storrs and again Nelson H Barbour were drawing their conclusion based on the Miller rendition. Russell turned it into a public debate through their respective publicans, Russell advised against making such claims of the second coming of Christ or Second Advent. Russell and Storrs had a falling out due to this, and then later Barbour resigned to pursue his own doctrine. So the inferences of those dates given by you are false. 1799 was part of the Miller movement not the Bible Students just as I included 1844. 1874-1878 were suppositions held by Storrs and Barbour on the teaching of Miller and associated them with their own publications. Russell didn’t start the ZWT until 1879 and officially in 1881 which disputes your arrogant claim that those works belonged to Russell. Since there were different association between them at that time, international bible students, Independent bible students, associated bible students, etc. Russell identified more with the bible students, not the association. Perhaps you people might study more on the origin than just looking at Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia or that ridiculous jwfacts.com. The original participants of the bible students were: C.T. Russell, J.L. Russell, M.F. Russell, W.H Conley, and A.H. Macmillan that’s all.

Quotes from various publicans: FACTS

George Storrs was publisher of the magazine Bible Examiner, in Brooklyn, New York. Storrs, who was born on December 13, 1796, was initially stimulated to examine what the Bible says about the condition of the dead as a result of reading something published (though at the time anonymously) by a careful student of the Bible, Henry Grew, of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Storrs became a zealous advocate of what was called conditional immortality—the teaching that the soul is mortal and that immortality is a gift to be attained by faithful Christians. He also reasoned that since the wicked do not have immortality, there is no eternal torment. Storrs traveled extensively, lecturing on the subject of no immortality for the wicked. Among his published works was the Six Sermons, which eventually attained a distribution of 200,000 copies. Without a doubt, Storrs’ strong Bible-based views on the mortality of the soul as well as the atonement and restitution (restoration of what was lost due to Adamic sin; Acts 3:21) had a strong, positive influence on young Charles T. Russell.

While, as the reader will have observed, we disagree with Mr. Miller’s interpretations and deductions, on almost every point—viewing the object, as well as the manner and the time, of our Lord’s coming, in a very different light

Anxious to learn, from any quarter, whatever God had to teach, I at once wrote to Mr. Barbour, informing him of my harmony on other points and desiring to know particularly why, and upon what Scriptural evidences, he held that Christ's presence and the harvesting of the Gospel age dated from the autumn of 1874. The answer showed that my surmise had been correct, viz.: that the time arguments, chronology, etc., were the same as used by Second Adventists in 1873, and explained howMr. Barbour and Mr. J. H. Paton, of Michigan, a co-worker with him, had been regular Second Adventists up to that time; and that when the date 1874 had passed without the world being burned, and without their seeing Christ in the flesh, they were for a time dumb-founded.

Expecting the Lord Jesus to come in 1878 to catch them up miraculously to be with him in heaven, some who had been Second Adventists (including Barbour) were disappointed when that miracle did not occur

In 1878 Russell had a major disagreement with one of his collaborators, who had rejected the teaching that Christ’s death could be atonement for sinners. In his rebuttal Russell wrote: “Christ accomplished various good things for us in his death and resurrection. He was our substitute in death; he died the just for the unjust—all were unjust. Jesus Christ by the grace of God tasted death for every man. . . . He became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him.” He continued: “To redeem is to buy back. What did Christ buy back for all men? Life. We lost it by the disobedience of the first Adam. The second Adam [Christ] bought it back with his own life.”—Mark 10:45; Romans 5:7, 8; 1 John 2:2; 4:9, 10.
Paton did write the article, and it was published in the December issue. After repeated unsuccessful efforts to reason on the matter with Barbour from the Scriptures, Russell broke off association with him and withdrew support from his magazine. In July 1879, Russell began to publish a new magazine—Zion’s Watch Tower

People sure love to disprove the WT with their Past books, magazines, public talks, as if WT is the only religion that agrees with that chronology. What makes the works of any other religion any better or tangible if it’s not convincing to people just because someone else explained it better and somehow more credible? Then it really doesn’t matter what you believe. History is especially interesting. Not even the people whose ancestors lived in those lands are as much ignorant on their own history as the story teller. If you people want to be credible with your criticism, you need to first learn to be a theologian, archeologist, and historian put together, then maybe you’ll see the chronology of Nebuchadnezzar is very confusing because of what was going on at that time, Whether Nebuchadnezzar was a General when sacking Jerusalem or King when destroying it. How many battle fronts were accruing at the same time, who used what calendar, and best of all how Muslim nations even today hide evidence that directly support bible chronology especially the inference between 606/607 or 586/587 Former Witness

To solve a case like this, it helps if we compare apples with apples.
First of all the exact date is 607 BC according to Bishop Ussher , not 606 BC. This was indeed the first year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar if we just count as the Bible counts. And the first year of Jehoiakim starts in 610 BC. As our years don't fit nicely into the reigns of the kings (different starting month), the third year is 607 BC .
Now to the supposed bad history. The author of the SAB quotes here Farrell Till as saying that the first invasion was at 597 BC, which would be the last year of Jehoiakim. Farrell Till concludes this from Babylonian records. And Farrell Till makes a second claim, namely that Nebuchadnezzar became king in 605 BC, two years after the Bible says he besieged Jerusalem. All these dates can be a bit confusing, so let me give a time line below (all dates in BC), and according to Ussher's chronology:
610: Jehoiakim is made king by Pharaoh Nechoh, see 2 Kg. 23:34 .
608: Nebuchadnezzar is made viceroy.
607: battle of Carchemish , where Egypt was defeated (fourth year of Jehoiakim), see Jer. 46:2 .
607: first siege of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar; Daniel and his friends taken and brought to Babylon, start of the 70 years of captivity.
605: death of Nabopolassar, father of Nebuchadnezzar.
604: Jehoiakim rebels (2 Kg. 24:1), it takes Nebuchadnezzar a few years to be able to respond.
600: Nebuchadnezzar invades Judah, see 2 Kg. 24:2 .
599: second siege of Jerusalem; Jehoiakim's son Jeconiah, also Jehoiachin, was taken to Babylon (Jer. 27:20), see also 2 Kg. 24:12 .
589: last siege of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar.
588: destruction of the first temple.
Note that secular history gives 586 BC as the date that Solomon's temple was destroyed. And note that Bishop Ussher's starts the reign of Nebuchadnezzar two years earlier than secular history.
We know the relationship between the reign of Nebuchadnezzar and Jehoiakim, and this allows us to match their reigns. According to Jer. 25:1 the fourth year of Jehoiakim falls within the first year of Nebuchadnezzar. From this verse we know that Nebuchadnezzar's reign began during the third year of Jehoiakim.
So this allows us to solve the second “contradiction” claimed by Mr. Till: he compares Ussher's chronology as used in many Bible dictionaries with dates used by secular historians, and so obtains his contradiction that Nebuchadnezzar wasn't even king. In secular history, Jehoiakim begins his reign in 609 , and Nebuchadnezzar begins his reign at 605 . But secular dates are simply wrong, as the Bible does not contradict itself and internally aligns the reigns of these two kings perfectly and consistently. It's only when we start using dates obtained by some method outside the Bible that we can obtain a contradiction.
It is correct that Nebuchadnezzar's father died in 605 BC. When that happened Nebuchadnezzar became sole ruler. But from the Bible we know that as viceroy he reigned already 2 years before that. It is the normal procedure in the Bible to count the reign of a king from the first year that he became a viceroy.
This also explains why he was in Jerusalem in his first year. If he had become king, he probably would not have ventured too far outside his realm in the first year, but would be establishing his power base in his home country and close at home. But because his father still reigned, he was able to make fame for himself by venturing abroad to obtain glory and loot.
There is one issue that might seem contradictory: from Jer. 46:2 we know that the battle of

Carchemish was in the fourth year of Jehoiakim, while this verse seems to say that in the third year of Jehoiakim we find Nebuchadnezzar before Jerusalem, which happened after the battle of Carchemish. But it we read this verse correctly, it says that Nebuchadnezzar came in the third year, that is, he left with his army at the end of the third year of Jehoiakim. From Jer. 46:2 we know when he arrived: in the beginning of the fourth year of Jehoiakim.
A different resolution is offered by Mark S. Haughwout, who claims :

This apparent discrepancy with Daniel’s account above is actually a cultural difference of dating systems. Jeremiah, living in the land of Israel, naturally uses the Israeli dating system, which would place Jehoiakim's fourth year in 604 BC. Daniel, using the Babylonian system, places Jehoiakim's third year in 604 BC. The Babylonians considered a king’s first year to start on the first New Years day in his reign.

Having established the date of the siege, let us have a look at the claim that the first siege of Jerusalem was only in 597. This is unlikely. If we look at the Biblical record, we see that Pharaoh Nechoh was expanding his kingdom to the North and East, something the Babylonian Chronicles also record . On his way back from Harran , Pharaoh Nechoh disposed the king in Jerusalem and installed Jehoiakim, 2 Kg. 23:34 . Farrell Till would make us believe that it took more then 10 years for Nebuchadnezzar to respond to this act of Pharaoh Nechoh. But this act of Pharaoh Nechoh is actually the reason we see Nebuchadnezzar before Jerusalem! In his first year as viceroy, he begins with his campaign to defeat Pharaoh, which he did convincingly at Carchemish. Afterwards he marches south to attack Pharaoh's allies and dispose his vassals. And that is why we find him before Jerusalem at this time and Daniel and his friends were taken to Babylon. His venture south ends with the full retreat of Pharaoh, see 2 Kg. 24:7 .
So the first siege was in 607, the second siege was in 599 (not 597 as secular history has it), and the third and last in 589 BC

36

Free Will - What a Joke !

by cookiemaster in

everytime i hear jw's talking about free will, i either feel the urge to burst in laughter or feel sick.

each publication keeps talking about how wonderful jokehova is for giving us free will.

the only small thing is that he'll kill you if you don't do exactly what he says.

billythekid46

Is it just the JW’s to speak of free will, or does religion as a whole do that. If free will is impossible to comprehend, perhaps religion is not for you. Then you can choose either atheism or evolution as a better prospect, since JW’s is not the only religion to speak of free will. The WT does not make the rules, God does. So to blaspheme, it is not the WT that you’re talking against, its GOD. People in a daily bases are pushed to accept rules once they leave their dwelling and at times even within, it’s no different who the messenger is unless like 1 of the post said, live free embrace Satan and when its time to go, just go. If you don’t understand resurrection then it really doesn’t matter, we just move on. Former witness

Free will in ancient philosophy

The question of free will does not seem to have presented itself very clearly to the early Greek philosophers. Some historians have held that the Pythagoreans must have allotted a certain degree of moral freedom to man, from their recognition of man's responsibility for sin with consequent retribution experienced in the course of the transmigration of souls. The Eleatics adhered to a pantheistic monism, in which they emphasized the immutability of one eternal unchangeable principle so as to leave no room for freedom. Democritus also taught that all events occur by necessity, and the Greek atomists generally, like their modern representatives, advocated a mechanical theory of the universe, which excluded all contingency. With Socrates, the moral aspect of all philosophical problems became prominent, yet his identification of all virtue with knowledge and his intense personal conviction that it is impossible deliberately to do what one clearly perceives to be wrong, led him to hold that the good, being identical with the true, imposes itself irresistibly on the will as on the intellect, when distinctly apprehended. Every man necessarily wills his greatest good, and his actions are merely means to this end. He who commits evil does so out of ignorance as to the right means to the true good. Plato held in the main the same view. Virtue is the determination of the will by the knowledge of the good; it is true freedom. The wicked man is ignorant and a slave. Sometimes, however, Plato seems to suppose that the soul possessed genuine free choice in a previous life, which there decided its future destiny. Aristotle disagrees with both Plato and Socrates, at least in part. He appeals to experience. Men can act against the knowledge of the true good; vice is voluntary. Man is responsible for his actions as the parent of them. Moreover his particular actions, as means to his end, are contingent, a matter of deliberation and subject to choice. The future is not all predictable. Some events depend on chance. Aristotle was not troubled by the difficulty of prevision on the part of his God. Still his physical theory of the universe, the action he allots to the noûs poietkós, and the irresistible influence exerted by the Prime Mover make the conception of genuine moral freedom in his system very obscure and difficult. The Stoics adopted a form of materialistic Pantheism. God and the world are one. All the world's movements are governed by rigid law. Unvaried causality unity of design, fatalistic government, prophecy and foreknowledge--all these factors exclude chance and the possibility of free will. Epicurus, oddly in contrast here with his modern hedonistic followers, advocates free will and modifies the strict determinism of the atomists, whose physics he accepts, by ascribing to the atoms a clinamen, a faculty of random deviation in their movements. His openly professed object, however, in this point as in the rest of his philosophy, is to release men from the fears caused by belief in irresistible fate.

Free will and the Christian religion

The problem of free will assumed quite a new character with the advent of the Christian religion. The doctrine that God has created man, has commanded him to obey the moral law, and has promised to reward or punish him for observance or violation of this law, made the reality of moral liberty an issue of transcendent importance. Unless man is really free, he cannot be justly held responsible for his actions, any more than for the date of his birth or the colour of his eyes. All alike are inexorably predetermined for him. Again, the difficulty of the question was augmented still further by the Christian dogma of the fall of man and his redemption by grace. St. Paul, especially in his Epistle to the Romans, is the great source of the Catholic theology of grace.

Catholic doctrine

Among the early Fathers of the Church, St. Augustine stands pre-eminent in his handling of this subject. He clearly teaches the freedom of the will against the Manichæeans, but insists against the Semipelagians on the necessity of grace, as a foundation of merit. He also emphasizes very strongly the absolute rule of God over men's wills by His omnipotence and omniscience--through the infinite store, as it were, of motives which He has had at His disposal from all eternity, and by the foreknowledge of those to which the will of each human being would freely consent. St. Augustine's teaching formed the basis of much of the later theology of the Church on these questions, though other writers have sought to soften the more rigorous portions of his doctrine. This they did especially in opposition to heretical authors, who exaggerated these features in the works of the great African Doctor and attempted to deduce from his principles a form of rigid predeterminism little differing from fatalism. The teaching of St. Augustine is developed by St. Thomas Aquinas both in theology and philosophy. Will is rational appetite. Man necessarily desires beatitude, but he can freely choose between different forms of it. Free will is simply this elective power. Infinite Good is not visible to the intellect in this life. There are always some drawbacks and deficiencies in every good presented to us. None of them exhausts our intellectual capacity of conceiving the good. Consequently, in deliberate volition, not one of them completely satiates or irresistibly entices the will. In this capability of the intellect for conceiving the universal lies the root of our freedom. But God possesses an infallible knowledge of man's future actions. How is this prevision possible, if man's future acts are not necessary? God does not exist in time. The future and the past are alike ever present to the eternal mind as a man gazing down from a lofty mountain takes in at one momentary glance all the objects which can be apprehended only through a lengthy series of successive experiences by travellers along the winding road beneath, in somewhat similar fashion the intuitive vision of God apprehends simultaneously what is future to us with all it contains. Further, God's omnipotent providence exercises a complete and perfect control over all events that happen, or will happen, in the universe. How is this secured without infringement of man's freedom? Here is the problem which two distinguished schools in the Church--both claiming to represent the teaching, or at any rate the logical development of the teaching of St. Thomas--attempt to solve in different ways. The heresies of Luther and Calvin brought the issue to a finer point than it had reached in the time of Aquinas, consequently he had not formally dealt with it in its ultimate shape, and each of the two schools can cite texts from the works of the Angelic Doctor in which he appears to incline towards their particular view.

Thomist and Molinist theories

The Dominican or Thomist solution, as it is called, teaches in brief that God premoves each man in all his acts to the line of conduct which he subsequently adopts. It holds that this premotive decree inclines man's will with absolute certainty to the side decreed, but that God adapts this premotion to the nature of the being thus premoved. It argues that as God possesses infinite power He can infallibly premove man--who is by nature a free cause--to choose a particular course freely, whilst He premoves the lower animals in harmony with their natures to adopt particular courses by necessity. Further, this premotive decree being inevitable though adapted to suit the free nature of man, provides a medium in which God foresees with certainty the future free choice of the human being. The premotive decree is thus prior in order of thought to the Divine cognition of man's future actions. Theologians and philosophers of the Jesuit School, frequently styled Molinists, though they do not accept the whole of Molina's teaching and generally prefer Francisco Suárez's exposition of the theory, deem the above solution unsatisfactory. It would, they readily admit, provide sufficiently for the infallibility of the Divine foreknowledge and also for God's providential control of the world's history; but, in their view, it fails to give at the same time an adequately intelligible account of the freedom of the human will. According to them, the relation of the Divine action to man's will should be conceived rather as of a concurrent than of a premotive character; and they maintain that God's knowledge of what a free being would choose, if the necessary conditions were supplied, must be deemed logically prior to any decree of concurrence or premotion in respect to that act of choice. Briefly, they make a threefold distinction in God's knowledge of the universe based on the nature of the objects known--the Divine knowledge being in itself of course absolutely simple. Objects or events viewed merely as possible, God is said to apprehend by simple intelligence (simplex intelligentia). Events which will happen He knows by vision (scientia visionis). Intermediate between these are conditionally future events--things which would occur were certain conditions fulfilled. God's knowledge of this class of contingencies they term scientia media. For instance Christ affirmed that, if certain miracles had been wrought in Tyre and Sidon, the inhabitants would have been converted. The condition was not realized, yet the statement of Christ must have been true. About all such conditional contingencies propositions may be framed which are either true or false--and Infinite Intelligence must know all truth. The conditions in many cases will not be realized, so God must know them apart from any decrees determining their realization. He knows them therefore, this school holds, in seipsis, in themselves as conditionally future events. This knowledge is the scientia media, "middle knowledge", intermediate between vision of the actual future and simple understanding of the merely possible. Acting now in the light of this scientia media with respect to human volitions, God freely decides according to His own wisdom whether He shall supply the requisite conditions, including His co-operation in the action, or abstain from so doing, and thus render possible or prevent the realization of the event. In other words, the infinite intelligence of God sees clearly what would happen in any conceivable circumstances. He thus knows what the free will of any creature would choose, if supplied with the power of volition or choice and placed in any given circumstances. He now decrees to supply the needed conditions, including His corcursus, or to abstain from so doing. He thus holds complete dominion and control over our future free actions, as well as over those of a necessary character. The Molinist then claims to safeguard better man's freedom by substituting for the decree of an inflexible premotion one of concurrence dependent on God's prior knowledge of what the free being would choose. If given the power to exert the choice. He argues that he exempts God more clearly from all responsibility for man's sins. The claim seems to the present writer well founded; at the same time it is only fair to record on the other side that the Thomist urges with considerable force that God's prescience is not so understandable in this, as in his theory. He maintains, too, that God's exercise of His absolute dominion over all man's acts and man's entire dependence on God's goodwill are more impressively and more worthily exhibited in the premotion hypothesis. The reader will find an exhaustive treatment of the question in any of the Scholastic textbooks on the subject.

Free will and the Protestant Reformers

A leading feature in the teaching of the Reformers of the sixteenth century, especially in the case of Luther and Calvin, was the denial of free will. Picking out from the Scriptures, and particularly from St. Paul, the texts which emphasized the importance and efficacy of grace, the all-ruling providence of God, His decrees of election or predestination, and the feebleness of man, they drew the conclusion that the human will, instead of being master of its own acts, is rigidly predetermined in all its choices throughout life. As a consequence, man is predestined before his birth to eternal punishment or reward in such fashion that he never can have had any real free-power over his own fate. In his controversy with Erasmus, who defended free will, Luther frankly stated that free will is a fiction, a name which covers no reality, for it is not in man's power to think well or ill, since all events occur by necessity. In reply to Erasmus's "De Libero Arbitrio", he published his own work, "De Servo Arbitrio", glorying in emphasizing man's helplessness and slavery. The predestination of all future human acts by God is so interpreted as to shut out any possibility of freedom. An inflexible internal necessity turns man's will whithersoever God preordains. With Calvin, God's preordination is, if possible, even more fatal to free will. Man can perform no sort of good act unless necessitated to it by God's grace which it is impossible for him to resist. It is absurd to speak of the human will "co-operating" with God's grace, for this would imply that man could resist the grace of God. The will of God is the very necessity of things. It is objected that in this case God sometimes imposes impossible commands. Both Calvin and Luther reply that the commands of God show us not what we can do but what we ought to do. In condemnation of these views, the Council of Trent declared that the free will of man, moved and excited by God, can by its consent co-operate with God, Who excites and invites its action; and that it can thereby dispose and prepare itself to obtain the grace of justification. The will can resist grace if it chooses. It is not like a lifeless thing, which remains purely passive. Weakened and diminished by Adam's fall, free will is yet not destroyed in the race (Sess. VI, cap. i and v).

12

do you think there are 100,000 ex jw or interested to sign?

by carla in

do you think there would be 100,000 people willing to sign a petition for the white house to look into the jw pedophile issue in 30 days?.

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/how-why/step-step-guide.

"after you publish the petition, its up to you to promote it and get others to sign.

billythekid46

It seem a little to narrow to say JW pedophile petition or are you suggesting that JW’s are the only people that have dysfunctional people. Have you heard how in recent events the Pope ended up defrocking 400 priests for pedophilia I believe this problem is a Social issue. Should organizations or religions be accountable for what their members do or think in private? If they do, then you might as well include the entire human race. Let the man without sin cast the first stone. Does this mean perverts shouldn’t be prosecuted of course not? They should have the book thrown at them, but that book should be the law book and that has nothing to do with religion. Then you would be at peace with give César that belongs to Cesar, but give God that belongs to God.

I do however believe a petition should be made against the distinction between church and state. I do not believe that governments that embrace the LGBT life style shouldn’t have anything to do in Gods house. Federal, State, City, County even Churches should remove under God, In God we Trust, anything related to God. After all for true Christians isn’t LGBT an unclean act and susceptible to pedophilia? So then how many millions of people do you want religion to be responsible for or better yet how many hundred religions should go down for it or is it the just one. View of an Ex-Witness