Posts by TheStumbler

97

Elder father sent me an email about Feb 2012 WT - my resposne

by TheStumbler in

i'm not sure if any of you will remember but i posted on here six months ago about a correspondence i was having with my dad, an elder, about who would die in armageddon.

i was asking some tough questions about children being killed in armageddon and i could tell he uncomfortable with the answers he was giving.. i drafted an email in resposne to his email but in the end i decided not to send it in the interest of maintaining friendly relations.. .

last week, out of the blue, my dad sent an email link to the february 2012 watchtower article about armageddon and said it would answer some of my questions.. here is my response which is a critique of the feb 2012 wt article and some of the broader ethics concerning 'armageddon'.

TheStumbler

Thanks Chris,

I have taken what you said and come with three straight questions and phrased them carefully so I don't allow any wiggling room

97

Elder father sent me an email about Feb 2012 WT - my resposne

by TheStumbler in

i'm not sure if any of you will remember but i posted on here six months ago about a correspondence i was having with my dad, an elder, about who would die in armageddon.

i was asking some tough questions about children being killed in armageddon and i could tell he uncomfortable with the answers he was giving.. i drafted an email in resposne to his email but in the end i decided not to send it in the interest of maintaining friendly relations.. .

last week, out of the blue, my dad sent an email link to the february 2012 watchtower article about armageddon and said it would answer some of my questions.. here is my response which is a critique of the feb 2012 wt article and some of the broader ethics concerning 'armageddon'.

TheStumbler

sorry, lots of typos in that last post - I was in a rush

Madsweeney, I haven't read Steve Hassan's book but I have read about it.

I know he doesnt think it is productive to try and win the discussion by reason and logic - instead push them into making their own conclusions by asking non confrontational questions.

I have tried this approach but I get frustrated by the logical falacies I get given as answers.

97

Elder father sent me an email about Feb 2012 WT - my resposne

by TheStumbler in

i'm not sure if any of you will remember but i posted on here six months ago about a correspondence i was having with my dad, an elder, about who would die in armageddon.

i was asking some tough questions about children being killed in armageddon and i could tell he uncomfortable with the answers he was giving.. i drafted an email in resposne to his email but in the end i decided not to send it in the interest of maintaining friendly relations.. .

last week, out of the blue, my dad sent an email link to the february 2012 watchtower article about armageddon and said it would answer some of my questions.. here is my response which is a critique of the feb 2012 wt article and some of the broader ethics concerning 'armageddon'.

TheStumbler

He said to understand I would need to have a face to face bible study - to get the full picture. He said that he, and millions, of others know that the Watcthower does not speak outside both sides of its mouth but he did not in any way attempt to refute my argument that the Febraury 12 Watchtower used words such as 'great crowd' are misleading to the public because they have quite a different meaning to JWs and that is not revealed in the article. He conceded that members of false religion cannot be part of the great crowd or annointed Christians but did not comment on the quotes that only the 'great crowd' and 'annointed christians' meaning only JWs will be saved. insead God He said only those who are 'good' as judged by God's standards found in scripture will be saved. He also made this comment that I had to share: It is only those with the right heart condition that will survive Armageddon, those wicked will not. Can a paraplegic be regarded as wicked? Can a person with the right heart condition be taught when the disabilities have been removed? Yes I don't really know what it means. regarding God killing billions - he said he cant comment on numbers but that God does not want to kill anyone and that is why the preaching work is done - he emphasises the scale of the preaching work (world wide and around the clock it is!). He also point out about how much suffering there is in the world and how perfect the new syste will be - he did not mention that 99.99% of those suffering today will be killed and not see the new system. he offered this analogy: I am sure you appreciate that in the case of a physical operation on the human body, an operation may be painful and necessary in order to save life which after all is precious. There is a parallel with all human life on this planet. Mankind is in a sick state, and at best we can only deal with the symptoms but not the cause, so crime, injustice, poverty, war and death continues. It is only Jehovah God that will deal with the root cause of all our problems, not just the symptoms and remove all human suffering, wickedness and death forever as well as bring back to life the righteous and the unrighteous onto a beautiful paradise earth Of course, in his analogy, if Jehovah is the surgeoun then to cure his sick patient he will remove 99.99% of the body leaving perhaps just a few brain sells - evidently not the ones responsible for critical thinking. regarding my comment about Children not being responsible for their parents and that is unfair to punish children for their parents action his reply was simply 'parents are responsible for their children' and 'interstingly, in many countries today the authorities see children as the responsibility of the parents

97

Elder father sent me an email about Feb 2012 WT - my resposne

by TheStumbler in

i'm not sure if any of you will remember but i posted on here six months ago about a correspondence i was having with my dad, an elder, about who would die in armageddon.

i was asking some tough questions about children being killed in armageddon and i could tell he uncomfortable with the answers he was giving.. i drafted an email in resposne to his email but in the end i decided not to send it in the interest of maintaining friendly relations.. .

last week, out of the blue, my dad sent an email link to the february 2012 watchtower article about armageddon and said it would answer some of my questions.. here is my response which is a critique of the feb 2012 wt article and some of the broader ethics concerning 'armageddon'.

TheStumbler

He said to understand I would need to have a face to face bible study - to get the full picture. He said that he, and millions, of others know that the Watcthower does not speak outside both sides of its mouth but he did not in any way attempt to refute my argument that the Febraury 12 Watchtower used words such as 'great crowd' are misleading to the public because they have quite a different meaning to JWs and that is not revealed in the article. He conceded that members of false religion cannot be part of the great crowd or annointed Christians but did not comment on the quotes that only the 'great crowd' and 'annointed christians' meaning only JWs will be saved. insead God He said only those who are 'good' as judged by God's standards found in scripture will be saved. He also made this comment that I had to share: It is only those with the right heart condition that will survive Armageddon, those wicked will not. Can a paraplegic be regarded as wicked? Can a person with the right heart condition be taught when the disabilities have been removed? Yes I don't really know what it means. regarding God killing billions - he said he cant comment on numbers but that God does not want to kill anyone and that is why the preaching work is done - he emphasises the scale of the preaching work (world wide and around the clock it is!). He also point out about how much suffering there is in the world and how perfect the new syste will be - he did not mention that 99.99% of those suffering today will be killed and not see the new system. he offered this analogy: I am sure you appreciate that in the case of a physical operation on the human body, an operation may be painful and necessary in order to save life which after all is precious. There is a parallel with all human life on this planet. Mankind is in a sick state, and at best we can only deal with the symptoms but not the cause, so crime, injustice, poverty, war and death continues. It is only Jehovah God that will deal with the root cause of all our problems, not just the symptoms and remove all human suffering, wickedness and death forever as well as bring back to life the righteous and the unrighteous onto a beautiful paradise earth Of course, in his analogy, if Jehovah is the surgeoun then to cure his sick patient he will remove 99.99% of the body leaving perhaps just a few brain sells - evidently not the ones responsible for critical thinking. regarding my comment about Children not being responsible for their parents and that is unfair to punish children for their parents action his reply was simply 'parents are responsible for their children' and 'interstingly, in many countries today the authorities see children as the responsibility of the parents

97

Elder father sent me an email about Feb 2012 WT - my resposne

by TheStumbler in

i'm not sure if any of you will remember but i posted on here six months ago about a correspondence i was having with my dad, an elder, about who would die in armageddon.

i was asking some tough questions about children being killed in armageddon and i could tell he uncomfortable with the answers he was giving.. i drafted an email in resposne to his email but in the end i decided not to send it in the interest of maintaining friendly relations.. .

last week, out of the blue, my dad sent an email link to the february 2012 watchtower article about armageddon and said it would answer some of my questions.. here is my response which is a critique of the feb 2012 wt article and some of the broader ethics concerning 'armageddon'.

TheStumbler

well, I got a reply.

It seems logic and reason is to JWs what water is to a ducks back. He didn't seem to understand some of the points I was making - his answers often missed the point entirey and didnt address the question.

I don't feel right posting someone's email on the internet without their consent I will summarise the response instead

97

Elder father sent me an email about Feb 2012 WT - my resposne

by TheStumbler in

i'm not sure if any of you will remember but i posted on here six months ago about a correspondence i was having with my dad, an elder, about who would die in armageddon.

i was asking some tough questions about children being killed in armageddon and i could tell he uncomfortable with the answers he was giving.. i drafted an email in resposne to his email but in the end i decided not to send it in the interest of maintaining friendly relations.. .

last week, out of the blue, my dad sent an email link to the february 2012 watchtower article about armageddon and said it would answer some of my questions.. here is my response which is a critique of the feb 2012 wt article and some of the broader ethics concerning 'armageddon'.

TheStumbler

Here's my final response:

Thanks for providing the link, I read the article with interest.

My questions were; who will die at Armageddon and will this include children and if so why would a loving God kill innocent children.

Regarding who will die at Armageddon, the Feb 2012 Watchtower article states that at least millions will die:

‘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, thus issuing a defiant challenge to God’s interests. The attack will result in the death of millions of people when God defeats the invaders.—Revelation 19:11-18. (Watchtower February 2012)

The article also states that Armageddon will save millions of lives:

‘The war of Armageddon results in the saving of millions of lives. In fact, it is a prelude to a period of peace on earth.—Revelation

21:3, 4.’ (Watchtower February 2012)

There are over 7 billion people on this planet so saying that millions will die and millions will survive says very little – it could mean that 7 billion people will die or that 7 billion will survive. One billions is a thousand million after all.

So, the Feb 2012 article does not definitively state how many will be killed in Armageddon – it could be millions or billions – but it does hint at who might be killed:

‘In fact, God’s Word long foretold that Jehovah will destroy the wicked. (Proverbs

2:21, 22; 2 Thessalonians 1:6-9)’ (Watchtower February 2012)

God will defend good people from those who would crush them (Watchtower February 2012)

These are weasel words because ‘wicked’ and ‘good’ are subjective and open to interpretation. Take me for example, Am I good or wicked? I would say I am mostly good but some evangelical Christians or Islamists would probably describe me as thoroughly wicked.

I think the Watchtower is guilty here of speaking out of both sides of its mouth because it using language that has a double meaning – one meaning to the public and another to Jehovah’s Witnesses.

For example, under the heading ‘What lasting effect will this confrontation have’ the February 2012 Watchtower article states that a ‘great crowd’ will survive the Armageddon:

The book of Revelation talks about an unnumbered “great crowd” who will survive this conflict. (Revelation 7:9, 14) Under God’s guidance, these will help to restore the earth to the Paradise conditions that Jehovah originally purposed. (Watchtower February 2012)

To most public readers of the February 2012 Watchtower, ‘unnumbered great crowd’ is vague and non-specific language but implies many people, perhaps even most people, however to Jehovah’s Witnesses it has quite a specific and different meaning:

‘There would be "a great crowd" out of all nations who would not experience death but would have the prospect of living forever on earth. Are you among them?...The great crowd support the small number of those with heavenly hopes, who take the lead in the preaching work. Those of the great crowd are pictured as being marked for survival. (Ezekiel 9:4-6) "The mark" is the evidence that they are dedicated to Jehovah, baptized as disciples of Jesus, and involved in cultivating a Christlike personality’ (Worship the Only True God (2002) p.124)

Only those ‘marked’ for salvation will survive into Jehovah’s new system. (Ezek. 9:2-6) (KM 10/87 p. 8 par. 7 Help Others to Dedication and Baptism)

Unless the Watchtower recognizes members of false religion as ‘anointed Christians’, it clearly identifies only its own members, to the exclusion of wordly people, as the ‘Great Crowd’:

‘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’ (Watchtower July 2007, Highlights From the Book of Ezekiel-I)

So, the February 2012 Watchtower is trying to appear moderate to members of the public by saying that only ‘wicked people’ will die in Armageddon and that a ‘great crowd’ will survive. However, the ‘great crowd’ turns out to be quite small in number and whilst most members of the public would consider ‘wicked people’ to be rapists and murderers the Watchtower defines ‘wicked people’ quite differently.

Evidently, the Watchtower views all those not associated with Jehovah’s Witnesses as wicked because in other Watchtower literature/publications it quite clearly states that only Jehovah’s Witnesses will survive Armageddon:

"Only Jehovah's Witnesses, those of the anointed remnant and the "great crowd," as a united organization under the protection of the Supreme Organizer, have any Scriptural hope of surviving the impending end of this doomed system dominated by Satan the Devil." (Watchtower 1989 Sep. 1 p.19) "Similarly, Jehovah is using only one organization today to accomplish his will. To receive everlasting life in the earthly Paradise we must identify that organization and serve God as part of it." (Watchtower 1983 Feb. 15 p.12) "Is it presumptuous of Jehovah's Witnesses to point out that they alone have God's backing? Actually, no more so than when the Israelites inEgypt claimed to have God's backing in spite of the Egyptians' belief, or when the first-century Christians claimed to have God's backing to the exclusion of Jewish religionists." ( Watchtower 2001 June 1 p.16)

This appears to be current teaching as of 2006:

"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." (Watchtower 2006 May 15 p.22 "Are You Prepared for Survival?" Paragraph 8)

I know you disagreed with me when I made this claim in my email last year:

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. Your understanding is different to mine on this matter

(my words in italics, your words in bold)

But the Watchtower literature speaks for itself and it quite clearly teaches that only Jehovah’s Witnesses will survive Armageddon. Are you saying that your understanding of the Bible is different than the Watchtower’s?

This leads onto my original question, if only Jehovah’s Witnesses will be saved, how many will be killed?

There are over 7 billion people in the world and approximately 7 million Jehovah’s Witnesses. Jehovah’s Witness make up only 0.001% of the global population and so, according to watchtower teaching, 99.999% of the population, some 7 billion people, will be killed in Armageddon.

I have asked you before if the children of the ‘wicked’ will also be killed in Armageddon and you could not give me a straight answer. The February 2012 Watchtower article you sent me does not address this question however previous publications have:

What will happen to young children at Armageddon? The Bible does not directly answer that question, and we are not the judges. However, the Bible does show that God views the young children of true Christians as "holy." (1 Cor. 7:14) It also reveals that in times past when God destroyed the wicked he likewise destroyed their little ones." (Reasoning from the Scriptures pp.47-48)

According to a Unicef report in 2005, there were approximately 2.2 billion children in the world. Considering this, Armageddon will, according to Watchtower teaching, involve the slaughter of approximately 2.2 billion children – many young infants.

Previously you agreed, in principle, that punishing children for their parent’s wrongdoings is wrong:

“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)

Leaving God and the Bible aside for a moment, can you honestly justify the killing children for their parent’s wrong doings in any way?

If not, how do you reconcile your own moral standard with Jehovah’s actions (the flood, Armageddon)? Either you believe it is morally justified in some circumstances to kill children for their parent’s wrongdoings or you must believe Jehovah was wrong to murder children during the flood and would be wrong to kill billions of children in Armageddon.

Also, going back to my email last year (sorry, I know it is months ago now) I believe you misread one of my comments:

Your justification falls short. I agree that parents are responsible for their children but I do not believe children are responsible for their parents and so your analogy fails. I disagree. If you are referring to conduct, then parents are responsible for their children as children and young adults.

(my words in itallics, your words in bold - this was in response to you explanation that innocent children should be killed in Armageddon because their parents are sinners and parents are responsible for their children)

I agreed that parents were responsible for their children. My point was that children are not responsible for their parents. This is why your justification for the murder of children is wrong - children have no control over who their parents happen to be or what religion they are born into. It is therefore perverse to punish them for circumstances over which they have no say.

The February 2012 Watchtower article attempts to answer some of these ethical questions:

Why would God, whom the Bible describes as “merciful, slow to anger, and abundant in loving-kindness,” cause the death of so many humans? (Nehemiah 9:17) To understand God’s actions, we need to answer three questions: (1) Who starts the war? (2) Why does God become involved? (3) What lasting effect will this confrontation have on the earth and its inhabitants? (Watchtower February 2012)

To question (1), the Watchtower answers that ‘ Armageddon is not an act of aggression by God. Instead God will defend good people from those who would crush them’ .

As shown above, ‘ good people’ refers only to Jehovah’s Witnesses so Watchtower’s answer to the question, why would a merciful God kill so many people, is that he will kill most people, including their children, but he will defend a small group of people. This is like arguing a person who walks into a crowded room and shoots everyone but spares the lives of two people is merciful.

To question (2), Watchtower states that God will become involved and kill billions of people because he promised he would and if he fails to do so he will be made a liar and lose face.

‘If God did not step in to save his people, they would be wiped out. Therefore, Jehovah

God’s name, or reputation, will be at stake. If the aggressors managed to do away with His people, it would make Jehovah appear to be unloving, unjust, or helpless’ (Watchtower February 2012)

So, God will kill billions, including children, for the sake of his pride and keeping up appearances. Bizarrely, the Watchtower doesn’t consider that God killing billions of people and their children would make him more than just 'appear' to be unloving and unjust.

To question (3), Watchtower essentially argues that the murder of billions of children is justified because the survivors will live in a paradise.

Again, as shown above, according to Watchtower teaching, only a small group of people will get to see paradise and most people, upwards of 7 billion, will be killed (including children).

The Watchtower often likes to make a point about how much suffering there is in this world and promises that suffering will be eradicated in the ‘new system’ on a paradise earth but it usually neglects to mention that God’s method of achieving this ‘new system’ is to kill the overwhelming majority of people living and suffering in this current system. This is like watching a news item about a famine in Africa and concluding that killing all the starving people would be an effective solution because it would eradicate the famine.

None of Watchtower’s answers, to my mind, justify the murder of billions - particularly children. It is for this reason that even if you could convince me intellectually about ‘The Truth’ I would never accept it on a moral level.

Any God that demands worship and serfdom is unworthy of worship and any God that would threaten my family with death because of my personal beliefs is a murderous tyrant.

I know you would never condone the murder of children but never the less, these the logical conclusions of your belief system and I am not sure if you have ever stopped to consider the reality of the Watchtower ‘Armageddon’ teaching, perhaps instead focusing on the promise of peace and paradise.

Regardless, these are facts:

· The Watchtower teaches that only Jehovah’s Witnesses stand a chance of surviving Armageddon

· The Watchtower teaches that children of those who will be killed in Armageddon will also be killed and that the Noachian flood sets a Biblical precedent for this

· There are approximately 2 billion children alive on the planet today.

· There are only approximate 7 million Jehovah’s Witnesses alive today and so no more than a few million children have Jehovah’s Witness parents.

Either Jehovah is a murderous tyrant or one of the statements facts is wrong. Which is it?

97

Elder father sent me an email about Feb 2012 WT - my resposne

by TheStumbler in

i'm not sure if any of you will remember but i posted on here six months ago about a correspondence i was having with my dad, an elder, about who would die in armageddon.

i was asking some tough questions about children being killed in armageddon and i could tell he uncomfortable with the answers he was giving.. i drafted an email in resposne to his email but in the end i decided not to send it in the interest of maintaining friendly relations.. .

last week, out of the blue, my dad sent an email link to the february 2012 watchtower article about armageddon and said it would answer some of my questions.. here is my response which is a critique of the feb 2012 wt article and some of the broader ethics concerning 'armageddon'.

TheStumbler

Thanks for the quotes Blondie and everyone else for their input.

I have made a few minor edits, corrected a couple of typos and added a few words to the section with the Watchtower quotes (about only JWs surviving) and added a bit to the last section deconstructing the Watchtower's argument that a 'merciful God' could kill billions of people.

Depend on the respnse I might share it, if it is just regurgitated stock Watchtower apologetics then I'll share it, if it is anything personal I will not. Is it better for me to create a new thread or add it to this one? I'm not sure what the ettiquete is, I don't post online much (although I've lurked on this site for quite a while).

97

Elder father sent me an email about Feb 2012 WT - my resposne

by TheStumbler in

i'm not sure if any of you will remember but i posted on here six months ago about a correspondence i was having with my dad, an elder, about who would die in armageddon.

i was asking some tough questions about children being killed in armageddon and i could tell he uncomfortable with the answers he was giving.. i drafted an email in resposne to his email but in the end i decided not to send it in the interest of maintaining friendly relations.. .

last week, out of the blue, my dad sent an email link to the february 2012 watchtower article about armageddon and said it would answer some of my questions.. here is my response which is a critique of the feb 2012 wt article and some of the broader ethics concerning '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?

97

Elder father sent me an email about Feb 2012 WT - my resposne

by TheStumbler in

i'm not sure if any of you will remember but i posted on here six months ago about a correspondence i was having with my dad, an elder, about who would die in armageddon.

i was asking some tough questions about children being killed in armageddon and i could tell he uncomfortable with the answers he was giving.. i drafted an email in resposne to his email but in the end i decided not to send it in the interest of maintaining friendly relations.. .

last week, out of the blue, my dad sent an email link to the february 2012 watchtower article about armageddon and said it would answer some of my questions.. here is my response which is a critique of the feb 2012 wt article and some of the broader ethics concerning 'armageddon'.

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?

97

Elder father sent me an email about Feb 2012 WT - my resposne

by TheStumbler in

i'm not sure if any of you will remember but i posted on here six months ago about a correspondence i was having with my dad, an elder, about who would die in armageddon.

i was asking some tough questions about children being killed in armageddon and i could tell he uncomfortable with the answers he was giving.. i drafted an email in resposne to his email but in the end i decided not to send it in the interest of maintaining friendly relations.. .

last week, out of the blue, my dad sent an email link to the february 2012 watchtower article about armageddon and said it would answer some of my questions.. here is my response which is a critique of the feb 2012 wt article and some of the broader ethics concerning 'armageddon'.

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?