Thanks for all the follow up. That's a lot of stuff to resopnd to and I won't have time to deal with it all. So I'll at least try to respond on some and hopefully come back to others later.
exwhyzee:
Do you think that it is pleasing to God that 2012 years after his Son's death, people are still reading the Bible, calling themselves Christians and looking to him as a means for salvation? Since we can't be perfect isnt it enough that people are trying?
Yes,I do agree that God would not be displeased with those things. But I also think that if people called themselves Christians then God would expect them to accept the responsibilities which come with that. If they were reading the bible and at the same time claimed that there were no such responsibilities then that would likely be displeasing. If would be a bit like me saying I call myself your "friend" so that should be good enough. If you needed me to help with something I'd just shrug and say I don't understand why you're not just happy with my "friendship". Anyone who reads Jesus' words in the gospels and the rest of the NT, but conludes that we don't need to do anything except believe must be reading very selectively IMO.
Do you think Jesus might have meant his followers or Christians would have love among themselves associated with a single group or toward all those who claimed to be Christian no matter what group they are in ?
Very possibly the latter. But it could be understood either way so I keep an open mind about that.
Do you think it is loving when JW's leave literature at peoples houses that bash and condemn them to destruction for being part of a non JW Congregation of Christians they hold dear ?
One would have to be quite selective with the contents of the material to read it that way (notwithstanding perhaps the campaign we had a couple fo years ago on "False religions end is near"). But if someone truly believes that another person is not on the narrow road leading to life then I think it would be wrong not to say it clearly. Don't misunderstand me, I'm not saying they are necessaily correct, but here we are talking about whether they are "loving" not "correct". If the motivation is honestly right then yes I think a strong warning can be an expression of love.
Do all the details of the doctrine really matter all that much after all these years especially when there are so many ways for it to be interpreted , so long as they have the big chunks in place ? God the creator, Jesus sacrafice, obey Bible teachings as best as you are able to understand them.
I agree. It's the minute details that have often got us into trouble. We would do better to refocus on the big picture.
If the details are critically improtant, what about all the doctrinal changes that were made by the Watchtower Society after claiming they had The Truth and all others were condemned by God?
I understand what you're saying but it's difficult to identify specifics where WTS has said that other religions are condemned by God because of believing X and then for WTS to subsequently change to believing X. The idea of true worship / false worship has been presented as a more general concept than that. For example take the 1975 debacle. I don't think anyone would have said at the time that others are condemned for not believing the end was coming in 1975. Or that others are condemned for doubting the resurrection of the Sodomites. Its more general than that - the claim is based upon doctrines in part (hellfire, soul, etc), but also Christian morals and way of life, preaching etc. So as far as condemnation is concerned (if it's even ever been expressed that way) then I don't think it's been in relation to the smaller details. Nevertheless you are quite right that at any point in time too much has been claimed as regards the possession of complete truth. I agree.
Do you think it is possible that God looks at the individuals in each group of Christians and approves of them by their personal behavior rather than because of the group they are associated with ?
Yes. Absolutely.
Do you think there is ever a justification for Military action ? In Biblical times, God often had reasons for sending his people to war. He doesn't deal with mankind directly anymore but in your mind, could there ever be a reason for a Christian to take up arms that God might approve of ? I'm thinking of what the world would be like right now had Hitler (for one) not been stopped.
No I personally don't. When Jesus said "my kingdom is no part of the world" I do believe that means we should not make judgements that one political system is better than another and then take it into our own hands to support it by killing others as a result of that judgement. I believe that more recent conflicts which have ostensibly been promoted as a fight for right, have proven that often people are deceived into fighting for a country's greed (or perceived need). I think it's safer to go with God on this one and wait for him to clear the despots out of the way. I understand that sounds lame to anyone who doesn't believe that God is going to act, but I do have confidence that he will. In the meantime what would have happened if noone had stood up to Hitler? Who knows? Sometimes a moral decision has to be made based on God's word even if the consequences don't appear as though they will be the best. That also applies to the small things in life as well as the big ones.
Why do you suppose JW's spend so much time pointing out the faults and wrongdoings of other religious groups, the people of the world and other non Witness institutions and barely acknowledge, discuss or explain their own failings, rather than simply sticking to the business of teaching interested ones"their" understanding of the Bible and leave it at that ?
I don't know that it's necessarily wrong to point out faults of other religious groups. Jesus strongly exposed the way that the religious leaders of his day had moved far away from the word of God. I don't think he did that out of spite for those men, but rather to warn others not to follow them or go down the same route. If you had a teenage child who was going to hang-out with a group that would lead him into some seriously bad practices, would you stop at just trying to instill good morals in him/her, or would you also bluntly point out the problems with the behaviour of that group and the likely consequences? Again I'm not trying to get into the rights and wrongs of any particular group myself, simply pointing out that the motivation is not wrong in principle.
