Posts by AlanF

45

Do you believe the Ark of the Covenant still exists (or ever existed)?

by gaiagirl in

jw
friends

while thinking about more bible related legends depicted in films, a rather obvious one came to mind...the ark of the covenant.

do you think it still exists, hidden somewhere?

or do you think it was captured and destroyed following one of the defeats of israel?

AlanF

Yes, it's in my garage. I use it as a base for my workbench, and I have the cherubs standing on either side of my front door.

AlanF

39

Earthquakes and rumors of war or whatever ;o)

by Hellrider in

i was so inspired by the ridicolousness of thirdwitnoid in that other thread ("the gentile times reconsidered again...but this time i am using the bible"), in which he actually dared bring up the old "increase in earthquakes"-fairytale from the wt and asleep.

it really had nothing to do in that thread, which was about 607 vs 587 (oh no, not that again.... datelocationdeathsmagnitude.

jan. 23, 1556. shansi, china .

AlanF

Very good points, folks.

Thirdwitness continues to fail to deal with the fact that the Society's older methods of calculating the severity of the effect of earthquakes on mankind -- which the Sociey has given up on but he still uses -- result in exactly the same bogus result for any year at all in an era of increasing population. In fact, you can take any phenomenon whatsoever and make the same bogus conclusion.

By those methods, Jehovah's Witnesses today have a problem with gross sexual immorality that is some 130 times worse than 70 years ago.

AlanF

1380

The Gentiles Times Reconsidered--Again but this Time By Using the Bible

by thirdwitness in

think about this: if seven times mean only 7 years then daniel could have simply said 7 years.

why does daniel specifically use the word 'times' rather than years?

as we have already shown daniel used the word for 7 times instead of 7 years.

AlanF

In his post # 350 on page 55 thirdwitness wrote:

: The scriptures do tell you that his presence would be invisible

Wrong.

Readers will note once again the circularity of thirdwitness' arguments: "Since the presence is invisible, no one can see it. No one actually saw this presence beginning in 1914. Therefore, the parousia is invisible".

: but you have to look diligently into the Bible.

Translation: You have to blind yourself to the Bible and look at what the Watchtower Society claims about the Bible.

: It doesn't give it to you on a silver platter.

Translation: When you look at the Bible through Watchtower-colored glasses, you willingly become blinded to bullpucky, but it takes a lot of work to blind yourself that far.

: 1 Timothy 6:16 tells us about the ressurected Jesus in heaven: "whom not one of men has seen or can see. To him be honor and might everlasting."

: So right away we can illiminate

You certainly have a problem with spelling. I think that you ought to run your posts by some of your more astute colleagues, such as the one who described my "website" as "retarted". LOL!

: the thought that every eye will literally see Jesus.

A strawman claim. No one is claiming that "every eye will literally see Jesus". What posters such as I and AuldSoul are saying is nothing more or less than what the Bible itself says: Jesus' coming would be extremely visible in whatever unspecified manner the Bible writers meant -- if they consciously meant anything at all. If the Bible writers intended that "visible" meant literally, then so be it. If they intended that "visible" meant "in the sense that everyone would understand that Jesus had appeared in no uncertain terms to begin direct rule of the world", then so be it.

Since you've again raised a strawman, I'll eliminate every one of your arguments based on it.

: Daniel 7 explain just what it means to come on a cloud. Daniel 7:13 says, "I kept on beholding in the visions of the night, and, see there! with the clouds of the heavens someone like a son of man happened to be coming; and to the Ancient of Days he gained access, and they brought him up close even before that One. 14 And to him there were given rulership and dignity and kingdom, that the peoples, national groups and languages should all serve even him. His rulership is an indefinitely lasting rulership that will not pass away, and his kingdom one that will not be brought to ruin.

Readers will note that the above-quoted passage from Daniel gives no indication whatsoever as to when the supposed prophecies were to be fulfilled. Therefore, it is pure speculation to apply a specific fulfillment to these "prophecies".

: Allowing the Bible to interpret itself it is evident now what is meant by coming on a cloud. It denotes invisibility because when Jesus took up his kingship of God's Kingdom he came not physically or literally to earth but rather he gained access to Jehovah who is invisible in the heavens. He is spoken of as coming with the clouds and coming before Jehovah. It was invisible to the literal eyes of all humans.

You call this an argument? All you're doing is arguing that Jesus will never again be personally visible on earth, in the sense of his human body being observable or a ghostly manifestation being visible, such as whatever seems to have appeared to such people as the doubting Thomas who is claimed to have put his fingers into Jesus' spear wound. This is not an issue here.

:: If he came invisably in 1914, how is it every eye saw him?

: They didn't.

Then you disagree with the Bible. It's quite clear on the visibility of the parousia:

Matthew 24:27: For just as the lightning comes out of eastern parts and shines over to western parts, so the coming [parousia] of the Son of man will be.
Luke 17:24: For even as the lightning, by its flashing, shines from one part under heaven to another part under heaven, so the Son of man will be.

When lightning flashes, no one with normal senses can fail to see it. Therefore, the parousia, or the coming of the Son of man, will be visible to everyone with normal senses.

: Because Revelation 1:7 is not about 1914. Its about the time of Armageddon.

Actually, these passages -- assuming that they're actually coherent -- all talk about, not Armageddon, but the coming of the Son of man. Revelation 1:7 says nothing about Armageddon:

Revelation 1:7: Look! He is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see him, and those who pierced him; and all the tribes of the earth will beat themselves in grief because of him.

The only place in the entire Bible that talks about Armageddon is Revelation 16:16:

And they gathered them together to the place that is called in Hebrew Har-Magedon.

There are a huge number of problems in attempting to place whatever this is supposed to mean in any specific timeframe, And of course, the Watchtower Society's track record of 100% failure in applying "Bible prophecy" to specific events is legendary, so putting one's trust in anything it claims concerning esoterica such as Revelation is foolish.

Bottom line: Revelation 1:7 is connected with 1914 only in the fertile imaginations of Watchtower writers.

: Revelation 1:7 corresponds to Matthew 24:30 And then the sign of the Son of man will appear in heaven, and then all the tribes of the earth will beat themselves in lamentation, and they will see the Son of man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.

A fair conclusion that is entirely in harmony with all of my arguments.

: Revelation 1:7 says, Look! He is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see him, and those who pierced him; and all the tribes of the earth will beat themselves in grief because of him.

: Now notice that his coming the clouds of heaven in this case where every eye sees him results in all the earth beating themselves in lamentation. Why? Because it means their destruction. They will indeed then see close up and know that Jesus Christ is bringing destruction upon him

So far so good, except that your last "him" should be "them". Nevertheless, what you've said so far completely jibes with Matthew 24:27 and Luke 17:24, as I've shown above. In other words, we agree on a major point of biblical expostion! Surprise, surprise, surprise!

: because they opposed his people and thus opposed him.

Nothing more than an unsupported JW doctrine. This claim merely assumes that JWs are exclusively God's people, despite what Luke 21:8 states:

Look out that you are not misled; for many will come on the basis of my name, saying, ‘I am he,’ and, ‘The due time has approached.’ Do not go after them.

Titles in JW and Bible Student literature such as "The Time Is At Hand", "The Kingdom Is At Hand" and so forth, prove without doubt that JWs are exactly the kind of false prognosticators that Jesus warned against.

: But of course they cannot literally see Jesus because since his ressurection no one has seen or can see him. They will see him by seeing the destruction he brings upon wicked mankind for rejecting him as King and rejecting his brothers.

Actually, the scriptures are clear that "their seeing him" precedes the soon-to-come destruction by means of special "signs" that precede, and are independent of, "the coming destruction":

Luke 21:25-27: 25 Also, there will be signs in sun and moon and stars, and on the earth anguish of nations, not knowing the way out because of the roaring of the sea and [its] agitation, 26 while men become faint out of fear and expectation of the things coming upon the inhabited earth; for the powers of the heavens will be shaken. 27 And then they will see the Son of man coming in a cloud with power and great glory.
Mark 13:24-26: 24 But in those days, after that tribulation, the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, 25 and the stars will be falling out of heaven, and the powers that are in the heavens will be shaken. 26 And then they will see the Son of man coming in clouds with great power and glory.
Matthew 24:29-30: 29 Immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken. 30 And then the sign of the Son of man will appear in heaven, and then all the tribes of the earth will beat themselves in lamentation, and they will see the Son of man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.

: This is not the same as when he was enthroned as king in 1914.

Do tell. Since nothing of real note happened in that year, aside from the beginning of a typically large European war that had nothing to do with what C. T. Russell expected and published as one of "God's dates", it can hardly be argued that anything mentioned in this post has anything to do with an enthronement of Jesus in 1914.

: You will note that Revelation also said that those who pierced him would see him. How? They're already dead.

So far so good. Assuming that a resurrection ultimately occurs, no problem.

: Well, remember Jesus said if you do it to my brothers you do it to me. So those who persecute Christ's brothers are doing the same as persecuting Jesus. And they will see and know that they are being destroyed for opposing Jesus and his people.

A more ridiculous argument can hardly be imagined. No one today, aside from braindead JWs, thinks that failing to heed the braindead "message" of Jehovah's Witnesses has any relevance at all to anything in the real world -- even if they know anything at all about JWs, which about half the world does not.. Therefore, claiming that such a universal combination of ignorance and knowing rejection constitutes an "opposing" of "Jesus and his people" is insane. For the people who know nothing of Jesus, such a claim is stupid, because people cannot reject something they know nothing about. For the people who know something of Jehovah's Witnesses, almost all reject them as a cult that should be rejected on general grounds, and so they are in no sense "persecuting" JWs or deliberately rejecting what they know to be the truth.

: This also explains why Jesus said to his apostles: A little longer and the world will behold me no more, but YOU will behold me, because I live and YOU will live. --John 14:19.

Once again you show that you do not know the scriptures. We now complete the circle, because Matthew 28:18 clearly states:

And Jesus approached and spoke to them, saying: "All authority has been given me in heaven and on the earth. . . And, look! I am with YOU all the days until the conclusion of the system of things."

If Jesus really were "with" his followers "all the days" from when he spoke until today, then in view of scriptures like John 14:19, we must conclude that this "being with" is not literal but spiritual. Thus, your speculations are proved invalid.

AlanF

1380

The Gentiles Times Reconsidered--Again but this Time By Using the Bible

by thirdwitness in

think about this: if seven times mean only 7 years then daniel could have simply said 7 years.

why does daniel specifically use the word 'times' rather than years?

as we have already shown daniel used the word for 7 times instead of 7 years.

AlanF

I agree with you, Fisherman. In the world of Christianity, God is just by definition.

But this raises all sorts of problems.

For example, if God is just by definition, then his personal opinions are what define morality. Therefore, morality is not an absolute, but is merely "whatever God says". This sticks in the craw of thinking people, because if God suddenly said that it was of utmost importance and the height of morality to eat your children, your wife and your grandmother as soon as your belly was empty of the ones preceding, you would almost certainly reject this as the insane rantings of a mad god. I am reminded of the 1970-ish movie Bananas by Woody Allen, where the recently empowered dictator of a Spanish-speaking country in Central or South America decides that the language of San Marcos would hencforth be Swedish, and that to protect the public health, everyone should wear their underpants on the outside, "so we can check".

I'm sure you get my point.

AlanF

1380

The Gentiles Times Reconsidered--Again but this Time By Using the Bible

by thirdwitness in

think about this: if seven times mean only 7 years then daniel could have simply said 7 years.

why does daniel specifically use the word 'times' rather than years?

as we have already shown daniel used the word for 7 times instead of 7 years.

AlanF

In his post # 351 on page 55 of this thread, thirdwitness wrote:

: auldsoul said: Just as he has misrepresented the situation with Sodom; Sodom was NOT given any warning. The people did not KNOW what was about to happen, just as in the days of Noah and the days of the Son of Man.

: What are you trying to say? That Jesus was wrong when he said that part of the sign of his presence was that this good news of the kingdom will be preached and then the end would come?

AuldSoul cleared this up in his post # 4317 on page 55 of this thread, and you, in your usual fashion, had not the grace to answer, but completely ignored what he said.

Let me say it another way: Since there was no preaching work done by Lot toward the people of Sodom and Gomorrah, there was nothing for them to "take note" of or to know about a coming destruction. But because the Bible compares the days of Lot with the days of Noah and the days of the Son of man, and the Watchtower Society claims that these periods were identical in terms of the significant events to take place in them -- in particular, in terms of a "preaching work" and an ignoring of such preaching work on the part of everyone else in the world -- it follows that the Society is comparing all of these days to one another in all of these significant respects.

As AuldSoul said, "It wasn't that 'they took no note' it was that 'they did not know'. Just like the day and the hour, in point of fact. They do not know."

: I did not misrepresent the situation.

Yes, you most certainly did. As in the following:

: Lot did try to find righteous ones. He went to his sons-in-laws to be and tried to tell them.

That's not preaching to the populace. That's trying to protect potential sons-in-law.

: Who knows who else he talked to?

Pure speculation.

: The Bible doesn't give every detail.

Based on that, one could speculate that Noah had seven heads.

: But even that doesn't matter. If there were righteous ones there Jehovah would have warned them just as he did Lot.

By what means? Inspiration? Not bloody likely. The fact is that the account tells of angels -- messengers of God -- coming to Lot and warning him of a coming destruction. The fact that these messengers of God gave no messages to anyone besides Lot unarguably shows that God had already judged these people as worthy of destruction, and therefore no preaching was necessary.

: And Jehovah is warning people today by means of the preaching of the good news.

Yeah right. 99% of people who know anything about JWs know that they're a braindead cult and pay no attention to them. They class them along with Mormons, Seventh-Day Adventists, Moonies, and similar groups who are viewed by virtually all non-members as cults.

: And in the scriptures we are discussing in Matt 24:37 and Luke 17:26 Jesus is not comparing any preaching work of Lot to the preaching work during the presence of the Son of man. He is showing that the days of Lot and the days of Noah would be just like the days of the Son of man in that people would be living their everyday life taking no note of God until sudden destruction fell upon them. His illustration was not in connection to the preaching work done then or now.

You're so incredibly dense that you don't even realize that what you're saying is almost identical to what I posted in my long post #4718 on page 53 of this thread. Discussing Luke 17:20-35, I stated:

So here we have three parallels: the days of the Son of man, the days of Noah and the days of Lot. In the days of Lot, there was no preaching, no message of a coming destruction, and everyone who was about to be destroyed had no inkling of what was about to come. At the end of these days, destruction came suddenly, without warning. The same with the days of Noah. Although Noah is called "a preacher of righteousness", there is no indication that in the days before the Flood he covered the entire world with a warning message. The passage is clear that this did not happen, because people were just going about their everyday lives. When the Flood came, it was suddenly and without warning. So it was to be in the days before the Son of man arrived. When he arrived, it would be suddenly and without warning.

Now, since it's pretty obvious that your reading comprehension is limited to skimming and the simpler of sound-bytes, let me help you see the agreement between what the two of us said.

AlanF: In the days of Lot, there was no preaching . . . The same with the days of Noah. . . there is no indication that in the days before the Flood he covered the entire world with a warning message. The passage is clear that this did not happen.

Thirdwitness: Jesus is not comparing any preaching work of Lot to the preaching work during the presence of the Son of man. . . His illustration was not in connection to the preaching work done then or now.

AlanF: In the days of Lot . . . everyone who was about to be destroyed had no inkling of what was about to come. At the end of these days, destruction came suddenly, without warning. The same with the days of Noah. . . in the days before the Flood . . . people were just going about their everyday lives. When the Flood came, it was suddenly and without warning.

Thirdwitness: He is showing that the days of Lot and the days of Noah would be just like the days of the Son of man in that people would be living their everyday life taking no note of God until sudden destruction fell upon them.

Since we agree so closely on these points, just as AuldSoul pointed out, logically we ought to agree on the inevitable conclusion:

AlanF: So it was to be in the days before the Son of man arrived. When he arrived, it would be suddenly and without warning.

But of course, you do not agree with this conclusion. Why not?

: You believe that by saying that the people of Sodom didn't receive a warning and Lot didn't preach somehow disproves the point Jesus was making that the days of Noah and Lot when people were taking no note would be like the days or parousia of the Son of man. You point makes no sense whatsoever.

I can do no better than repeat AuldSoul's rejoinder -- which you completely ignored:

"You just said so yourself, these verses have nothing to do with preaching, therefore they also have nothing to do with people ignoring preaching. The people didn't know until the fire came, the people didn't know until the rain fell, the people will not know, until the Son of Man arrives.

Just because you didn't understand my point doesn't mean that my point doesn't make sense. Your lack of comprehension is not a reflection on the degree of sensibility in my points, it is a reflection of how clouded your mind is by JW thinking." Oh, by the way, how are you coming along in dealing with that 130-fold increase in gross sexual immorality among JWs? Doesn't it just totally remind you of Sodom and Gomorrah?

AlanF

1380

The Gentiles Times Reconsidered--Again but this Time By Using the Bible

by thirdwitness in

think about this: if seven times mean only 7 years then daniel could have simply said 7 years.

why does daniel specifically use the word 'times' rather than years?

as we have already shown daniel used the word for 7 times instead of 7 years.

AlanF

In his post # 341 on page 53 thirdwitness wrote:

: AlanF said: This is where the double lying comes in. The Society actually teaches that its use of "presence" focuses exclusively on the "subsequent presence" part of this meaning, so its 1996 Watchtower article was lying about the Society's historical usage of the term. That's why they use "presence" exclusively in the NWT. I've gone over this many times now, and the fact that you keep ignoring it proves you're a liar.

: Perhaps it would be good to learn the teachings of JWs before criticizing them.

Actually I know perfectly well what JWs teach, having been associated in one way or another for more than 50 years.

: 8-15-96 WT: Hence, it is not just the moment of arrival, but a presence extending from the arrival onward.

You've completely missed the point that I clearly stated above: "The Society actually teaches that its use of 'presence' focuses exclusively on the 'subsequent presence' part of this meaning." Having missed the import of my statement, the rest of your post is meaningless. So how about that 130-fold increase in gross sexual immorality among JWs, thirdwitness? Doesn't it remind you of Sodom and Gomorrah?

AlanF

1380

The Gentiles Times Reconsidered--Again but this Time By Using the Bible

by thirdwitness in

think about this: if seven times mean only 7 years then daniel could have simply said 7 years.

why does daniel specifically use the word 'times' rather than years?

as we have already shown daniel used the word for 7 times instead of 7 years.

AlanF

In his post # 369 on page 60 thirdwitness said:

: AlanF just said: Is it that you don't believe the account of the flood or you believe that Jehovah is an unjust God?

:: Both.

:: First, no earthwide flood has occurred in the past 600 million years, much less the past six thousand.

:: Second, a God who is as capricious as the Old Testament describes is obviously an ancient tribal myth, just as surely as are the gods of the Sumerian, Assyrians, Canaanites, Greeks, Romans, Norse and everyone else. A god who would kill everyone on the planet without warning, along with all animal life, can at best be described as capricious, and at worst as a monster.

: Now, how many want this guy trying to teach you what the Bible says? Please raise your hand.

Ah, but JWs demonstrably don't believe the Bible either. They believe the Watchtower Society, which pretends to believe the Bible but really does not. This is proved by the fact that the Society unequivocally rejects the clear statements in Exodus and Genesis that God created the entire universe in six days -- a problem that thirdwitness steadfastly refuses to address.

Furthermore, why would anyone put stock in a religious organization or its defenders, when that organization and its founder have a collective record, going back 130 years, of complete failure of everything they've ever predicted based on their understanding of the Bible? Isn't it painfully obvious that such a record proves unalterably that these people have no idea what they're talking about?

: I don't even know why AlanF even bothers trying to explain or argue what the Bible says at all.

Of course you do. Or at least, you think you do. You've stated the reason enough times: AlanF wants to discredit JWs.

Well of course, among the best ways of doing that is to show the many ways in which they reject clear Bible teaching, for whatever that's worth. That way, Bible believers get a better idea of what the Bible really says from the viewpoint of someone with no sectarian religious agenda, because my sources represent an extremely wide range of scholarship ranging from the extremely sectarian to the completely secular. Nothing like that can be said of the Watchtower Society, which self-admittedly exists only to promote the sectarian views of the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses.

: He don't

Your rural Texas background is showing. "He doesn't" is the proper expression. Even GWB has overcame that. [sic]

: even believe what he's saying anyway.

Of course I do. Anyone can make a study of any body of religious literature and understand what it has to say, and point it out to others without believing it. I can read and understand the Hindu Rig Veda and teach it to others without believing that it has any real religious import.

: And it is obvious from his last few inaccurate posts where he misapplies and misreads scriptures that he really does not know at all what the Bible teaches about Christ's parousia.

LOL! That's rich, coming from someone who believes and teaches that Jehovah's Witnesses have undergone a 130-fold increase in gross sexual immorality in the last 70 years, and thinks nothing of it.

AlanF

1380

The Gentiles Times Reconsidered--Again but this Time By Using the Bible

by thirdwitness in

think about this: if seven times mean only 7 years then daniel could have simply said 7 years.

why does daniel specifically use the word 'times' rather than years?

as we have already shown daniel used the word for 7 times instead of 7 years.

AlanF

In his post # 342 on page 54 thirdwitness said:

: AlanF said: I should note that much of the above statistical information on war, famine and pestilence is taken from Carl Jonsson's book The Sign of the Last Days: When?

: I notice that he quotes a lot from Carl Jonnson and his book. Who is this god Carl Jonnson that I should recognize his voice?

Who is this god that calls itself The Governing Body that anyone should recognize its voice?

: If you are allowed to quote Carl Jonnson as if he only speaks truth,

No one on this board thinks that. As usual you build a straw man.

Everyone is free to read or not read Jonsson's writings. Everyone who reads them is free to look up his references, examine his arguments and agree or disagree as they please -- without consequences either way. When I refer to his writings, I'm giving credit where credit is due.

: Can I likewise quote the WT as support for what I say and everyone accept it?

You can quote WT bullpucky as you please, and people on this board are free to agree or disagree as they please, of course with the caveat that to express an intelligent opinion they must actually examine the material and the sparse source references given.

However, JWs are NOT free to do this. They are required, on pain of disfellowshipping, to view all Watchtower writings as equal to the Bible.

I will also note that you often plagiarize Watchtower writings as if they were your own. When I reference anyone else's writings, I give credit where credit is due.

So how about that 130-fold increase in gross sexual immorality among JWs, thirdwitness? Doesn't it remind you of Sodom and Gomorrah?

AlanF

1380

The Gentiles Times Reconsidered--Again but this Time By Using the Bible

by thirdwitness in

think about this: if seven times mean only 7 years then daniel could have simply said 7 years.

why does daniel specifically use the word 'times' rather than years?

as we have already shown daniel used the word for 7 times instead of 7 years.

AlanF

This is adding to my post # 4731 on page 58.

thirdwitness wrote:

: Yes, alanf would do well to ignore my post # 353. Since it pointed out how ridiculous he was.

Thirdwitness' gross hypocrisy in this shown by his post # 341 on page 53:

: And of course because I do not quote every word AlanF has said and go thru sentence by sentence and answer him phrase by phrase he claims, "You did not answer me. You cannot refute what I say."

: When something is said of substance and relevance I will be happy to refute it, just as has been done over and over again.

So when thirdwitness goes through my posts and fails to deal with 95% of the material, and dismisses it out of hand with at best a skim reading, that's perfectly fine. It's just not something "of substance and relevance", so he can dismiss it.

Yet when I feign to do the same with just one of his posts -- after dealing line by line with most of his previous posts -- he hypocritically claims that my doing that shows that I'm ridiculous because I'm ignoring his nonsense.

Can anyone fail to realize how hypocritical this is? Coming from someone who routinely ignores more than half the posts coming his way, ignores 95% of the material in the posts he does respond to, and ignores all posts proving that certain JW beliefs are wrong or hypocritical?

I was fairly sure that my posting this would get thirdwitness to make his astonishingly hypocritical statement, and he fell right into my trap.

So how about that 130-fold increase in gross sexual immorality among JWs, thirdwitness? Doesn't it remind you of Sodom and Gomorrah?

AlanF

1380

The Gentiles Times Reconsidered--Again but this Time By Using the Bible

by thirdwitness in

think about this: if seven times mean only 7 years then daniel could have simply said 7 years.

why does daniel specifically use the word 'times' rather than years?

as we have already shown daniel used the word for 7 times instead of 7 years.

AlanF

thirdwitness said:

: AlanF said: How could a just God kill an entire world of people without warning them?

: Is it that you don't believe the account of the flood or you believe that Jehovah is an unjust God?

Both.

First, no earthwide flood has occurred in the past 600 million years, much less the past six thousand.

Second, a God who is as capricious as the Old Testament describes is obviously an ancient tribal myth, just as surely as are the gods of the Sumerian, Assyrians, Canaanites, Greeks, Romans, Norse and everyone else. A god who would kill everyone on the planet without warning, along with all animal life, can at best be described as capricious, and at worst as a monster.

So how about that 130-fold increase in gross sexual immorality among JWs, thirdwitness? Doesn't it remind you of Sodom and Gomorrah?

AlanF