Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses/archive 16

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.


For older discussion, see archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21
The following discussion is an archived section of Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section at Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses. No further edits should be made to this page.

Contents

Beliefs

"All are sinners." Is listed as a protestant belief, but not a general christian belief. Why? Which non-protestant christian churches do not consider everyone to be a sinner? Eastern Orthodox? I don't know a lot about them, but it seems unlikely.

Sockpuppets

Does anyone know how to check for sock puppets? I have reason to believe that some of the "editors" to this article are in fact a single individual editing under more than one WP user name. See also Prohibited uses of sock puppets --DannyMuse 17:02, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree with this suspicion. A handful of the editors who back similar points of view and edit nothing but this article often use nearly the exact same diction and methods to go about making a point. This includes at the very least three named editors, and some anonymous IPs. To whoever might be doing this; your input is respected much more if you stand up for your viewpoint by putting some sort of identification behind it, rather than constantly changing identies. -- uberpenguin 16:09, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
If you believe that some users are using more than one name, why not state who you think they are, instead of trying to raise suspicions with baseless speculation.--Jeffro77 00:14, 30 October 2005 (UTC) (sockpuppet-free)

Use of Scripture

I think the issue of scriptural quotes is coming up again. Originally, I was opposed to using them in the introductory section of the article, since it was already getting to long, and didn't really add value in that particular section, since it is better discussed in the main body of the article. Also, I wanted to avoid a scripture war, where JWs list out why a doctrine is justified according to scripture, and then anti-JWs list out scriptures of why the doctrines are not justified prefaced with "despite what it says in..." and that sort of thing.

In the current beliefs summary, I tend to think it's very difficult to encapsulate a bulleted list of beliefs and give a reader the general idea of their beliefs. So far, it isn't bad, but it isn't good either. With the scriptures there or not there, I think that perhaps a compromise is to list one scripture, and then save all others for another article on the topic.

Another thing is a matter of purpose. If the purpose is to simply give the reader a flavor of how scripture is interpreted, then that is perhaps neutral. If the scriptures are quoted as promoting a belief, then it is not neutral. Again, an article on JWs or many other Christian denominations cannot be done justice in absence of how they interpret scripture. So, the key is not that all scripture is banned, or that we quote a scripture for every point, but somewhere in the middle.

boche 02:54, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Boche, it would seem that perhaps a review of WP's NPOV policy is in order, both in what it is as well as what it is not. It has recently been asserted by user Elenap that the the use of scriptures is somehow "POV". But he did not refer to any specific reference in the WP policy to support this assertion. In the way of an "explanation" he left these two contradictory statements in his edit summaries:
  • "The use of scriptures to try and validate JW beliefs is a POV ..." - 12:02, 3 September 2005
  • "[T]he use of scriptures is POV, as they do not support JW doctrine ..." 20:06, 4 September 2005
In one comment he claims it's POV to use scripture to validate JW beliefs then in the next he says they don't support those beliefs! Which is it? Either way, it isn't a point of view, but an indisputable fact that JWs use the Bible as the primary source of their doctrines and beliefs. While many disagree with JW interpretation of the Bible, it is important that WP readers see how JWs use scriptures. Let the readers come to their own conclusions about whether or not those scriptures are properly understood and applied.
What the WP NPOV policy does say is this:
"Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. One important task for encyclopedias is to explain things. In the case of human beliefs and practices, explanation encompasses not only what motivates individuals who hold these beliefs and practices, but an account of how such beliefs and practices came to be and took shape. Wikipedia articles on history and religion draw from a religion's sacred texts. "
So then it is very appropriate to include a sampling of scriptures to allow WP readers to see how JWs apply and interpret the Bible. --DannyMuse 14:50, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
Danny you said above about my complaint of POV scriptures inserted: "In one comment he claims it's POV to use scripture to validate JW beliefs then in the next he says they don't support those beliefs! Which is it?" It's both Danny! They are not mutually exclusive. You have inserted a plethora of scriptures to try and validate JWs' doctrines. You and others are well aware that the vast majority of Bible scholars do not agree with that use of the Bible and they say it's misused, and misquoted over and over by JWs. That is why scriptures should not be there. 1. The Bible does not back up JW doctrine, so it is not a valid reference, and 2. It should not be misused (as it is now) to manipulate the public into thinking that the Bible validates JWs' teachings. These many, many scriptures have only been inserted to try and influence the readers; they are not there for any valid reference, or a back-up to JW doctrine, they are just propaganda.
If they are to stay, then you, or someone, should put an equal link to discussions that state these JWs' doctrines are not majority scripture based, and there are plenty of sites to choose from. Balance is the key, if there are to be many misused POV scriptures over and over again, row after row, then there has to be for balance an equal number of links to scholarly discussion contradicting JWs interpretation of those scriptures, and how they in the vast majority do not back up JWs doctrine. At the moment, Danny, you are trying to turn this entire article into a Watchtower magazine, packed with misquoted scriptures and no discussion making any proven point that these scriptures are backing up JWs' doctrines. Just the usual dump a scripture and run routine, it's not acceptable Danny, you may think any form of propaganda is ok as your religion teaches that, but keep it in your own magazines, please don't infect a public domain with it (I'm sure this will fall on deaf ears).
You made another comment "Either way, it isn't a point of view, but an indisputable fact that JWs use the Bible as the primary source of their doctrines and beliefs." Come on Danny, you know your comment is highly incorrect and very deceitful. Take a look at their predictions, where are they in the Bible, didn't Russell have a fetish for pyramids and made predictions based on their measurements?
1. demonstrate where 1899, 1874, 1878, 1914, 1918, 1925, 1975 etc, are "an indisputable fact that JWs use the Bible as the primary source of their doctrines and beliefs"?
2. Or Where does the Bible divide 'major and minor' blood parts, and say one is ok, and the other a grave sin? I can't find that in my Bible, can you show me please? Or plasma is a sin, but breaking it down is ok, or that red blood cells are a sin to use, but using the 99% haemoglobin in them is ok? Or that animal blood is a sin, but processing cows blood into products is and using them is ok? You get the picture Danny, and there are pages and pages more that scholars agree have no basis in the Holy Bible are all. Please refrain from making silly emotional claims that will end up with egg on your face.
You say more: "While many disagree with JW interpretation of the Bible, it is important that WP readers see how JWs use scriptures", except Danny, they do not see that, there are no justifying explanations, just a scriptures dropped in, and then run along to the next one before they have time to think. For each scripture, there should also be a link to a scholarly discussion that is contrary to JWs interpretation to give a rounded balance of coverage, if you oppose this, you have proven your motives are not pure, but agenda seeking for religious promotion, not balanced articles in a public domain, thus proving that these inserted scriptures are POV and should not be there. Why can't a belief just be "they believe x, y, z."? You are not discussing scriptures and there is not room on Wikipedia for that, so why try and manipulate by dropping them in controversially, and then running away with no justification for they reference? Elenap 8th of September 2005
Au contraire, there is plenty of room on Wikipedia as it is not a paper encyclopedia. As I said above, the scriptures are there to allow WP readers to see how JWs apply and interpret the Bible. This article is not about what the "majority of Bible scholars" do or don't think. If the scriptures really don't support the stated beliefs then WP readers that are curious will look them up and see that for themselves. Credit them with enough intelligence and sophistication to come to their own conclusions. What are you afraid of? --DannyMuse 05:59, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
Danny, yes, I agree with you that merely referencing scripture is not POV. It is very important to have the references in the article, since as I indicated before, you can't really discuss JWs without discussing how scripture is interpreted, and give the subject any justice. I suppose my only reservation is a minor one, in that I would like to avoid the article to become sounding like a WT publication. This isn't a criticism of WT publications. What I mean by it, is that this and WT publications have different purposes. So, it's appropriate to use scriptural references in a different manner. As you can see I can't come up with a hard and fast rule on any of this. I think that at the very least the discussion is good, since hopefully some ground rules can result from it. boche 17:21, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
Exactly, discussion is good. Then we can perhaps agree on some principles and guidelines. Now if we could just persuade some of the others ... --DannyMuse 23:08, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

My take is that in the context of a JW publication citation of a scriptural reference in parentheses means: 'Look this up, this reference establishes that what we are telling you is Scriptural' In the context of a wikipedia article setting forth JW beliefs, especially where those differ from commonly held beliefs of most self-identified 21st century 'Christians' it means: 'JW's base this unconventional belief on their interpretation of the following Scriptural passages and will always tell you so.' --BEN

Ben, as has already been said, Wikipedia references a religious topic based on the texts utilized, including sacred texts. It is not up to WP to constantly remind the reader that it is a particular religious group's inperpretation of the texts. That much is taken as implicitly understood by the reader. - CobaltBlueTony 16:04, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

Correct, which is why only citations are included in the article, not repetitive explicit inclusion of the context implicit in each of those citations. My post above explains why it is not POV justification to include these citations in WP as it is when identical citations are included in JW literature; the context differs. --BEN

I think it is important to identify what words or phrases form the core of the tenet or belief being explained... - CobaltBlueTony 17:27, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

That's the great thing about a nice compact Scripture citation for explaining a Witness belief as their unique or nuanced interpretation of Scripture: It set forth exactly the 'words or phrases' in Scripture which are interpreted by Witnesses as the bases of a belief without reproduction of the entire text of the Scriptural canon within the article. -- BEN SEP 13

Miscellaneous comments

id like to add to this in the fact that in the instance of evolution, we do believe that god works through science meaning he could have created the big bang and such as the bible says a day to god is a thousand years to man. we believe that man was created special, but we also believe that SOME evolution has occoured. 24.59.34.48 00:54, 14 September 2005 (UTC)james

In one of these articles, I made the edit about our different ideas concerning macroevolution, the change from one "kind" to another and microevolution, the observable changes within "kinds" of living things. Wouldn't you know it, but I can't find that edit now... - CobaltBlueTony 15:03, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

James you need to review Witness doctrine if you believe that it currently allows for the perspective that creation occurred thru the 'Big Bang.' The most liberal interpretation of Witness creation doctrine allows that special creation of individual species was not necessary but that microevolution from special creation of various 'kinds' has resulted in the current array of life seen on earth. The degree of speciation in the original special creation is no longer asserted as a firm point (to the best of my understanding)--it used to be asserted that this represented all species incapable of breeding with one and another (thus horses and donkeys would have been specially created while wolves and dogs were not). Of course, it also used to be asserted that the physical earth was only ~40,000 odd years old based on the assigned length via Bible chronology of the creative days and this has of course changed. This is an area where doctrine has been changing gradually in my lifetime and where it is necessary to 'wait on Jehovah' if you have doubts.

Witness doctrine does indeed allow for a Big Bang (though with the implication that God did it), evidenced in their Creator publication, which acknowledges that the universe is expanding and must therefore be expanding away from some particular point.

Was the Generation teaching discarding in 1994 or 1995?

Under the section on the "generation" alive during 1914, it seems as though its expiring twice, once in 1994 and again in 1995. I haven't been able to find any evidence that it was quietly discarded in 1994, and officially discarded in 1995. I would be happy for a clarification of this statement of its removal.

Joshbuddy 20:59, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Joshbuddy, several editors keep asserting that this teaching was changed in 1994, yet they provide no evidence. There is a very clear WP policy that is relevant to this. It requires all editors to cite sources. It is very important that all editors properly cite their sources using reliable sources and providing all the information necessary to find the original source. This is particularly true when the edits are concerning controversial issues. Regarding unattributed material, "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who has made the edit in question." Unsubstantiated claims can be deleted at will.
On the other hand, the change was published in the article "Saved From a 'Wicked Generation'", The Watchtower, November 1, 1995, pp. 10-15. --DannyMuse 05:56, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Danny-- I have no reason to believe that the interpretation of "this generation was refined in 1994 other than the edits of others here who exihibit a poor degree of reliability. However, I do know that the change predates its full explication in the November 1, 1995 Watchtower study articles. I know this because I attended the preceding series of district conventions where this change was mentioned.

Of course, I did too. I was referencing the publication date. It would not be innappropriate to reference a public speech that mentioned the change, but it should include the title of the talk, the date and location of the first convention that took place that year. --DannyMuse 14:34, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

BTW I don't mean to keep changing this. On the occasions I have done so it has been inadvertant as a part of changing elenap's continued POV edits

That change took place in the 1993 Divine Teaching Convention. According to Randall Watters, it occured in the two talks "What Will Be The Sign of Your Presence?" and "Tell Us, When Will These Things Be?". Regardless, these talks did not actually change that teaching, merely set the stage for the change.
Joshbuddy 18:37, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

NPOV

Given the obvious POV of certain edits (elenap's come to mind) and the high flux rate of this page I think there is a high likelihood that a reader will first encounter this page in a highly POV state. With that in mind I think it appropriate to maintain the POV tag unless and until the page settles down a bit --BEN Sep 16

Hello Ben,
If you are going to insert a NPOV header on the page, you are supposed to justify all and every point you have in mind, not completely smash up a page, and then rewrite it with no discussion or debate as a Watchtower PR exercise. Many others here have covered these issues over and over and the page has been approved by two administrators in regard to the eschatology section. My edits were reverting, not altering the main text sections. I only edited the last 1995 bit, and you've said nothing about that, except made unfounded claims. All major changes are supposed to be discussed first, and you have not done that, you have just ripped out the factual material and done a whitewash edit in apologist speak to look like it was all a minor dream or something.
A couple of points I will pick up on were where you claimed in regard to 1799, 1914, 1920, and 1925 etc., that they were “suggestive and purely speculative”, but Ben, not one of those dates falls into your apologist descriptions, you are clearly not being reasonable, rational, or honest
You then say “Progressive adjustments of understanding in the face of unfolding events, resulted in a period of changing explanations centered around the years 1914, 1918, 1920, and 1925.” That is also incorrect because those dates were only changed after their humiliating failure, not before. It hardly takes a brain surgeon to change a prediction, where the world is still looking on, long after the end was supposed have arrived! You also are trying to use very deceitful terminologies to try and pacify the facts to more and more insignificance, when they were anything but that at their times of publishing. An example of your gross dishonesty is here where you say “Other dates variously considered being time of God's judgement”. Since when were they “variously considered”? They forcefully stated, “we affirm that, Scripturally, scientifically, and historically, present-truth chronology is correct beyond a doubt. Its reliability has been abundantly confirmed. . .” and “This chronology is not of man, but of God. Being of divine origin and divinely corroborated, present-truth chronology stands in a class by itself, absolutely and unqualifiedly correct.” What you inserted was gross fabrication and deceit Ben. Why? What is your agenda? If you are embarrassed, get over it. You should not destroy, whole pages due to your religious ties to the JWs.
Ben, you said “They do not profess to be inspired”, but they use ever synonym in the book that directly implies that exact same thing, see quotes here 1 and here 2, why are you hiding this balance?
There are a lot more points that you are misleading and censoring for your own agenda, and that is not the purpose of Wikepedia. I get the impression you are possibly a naïve JW who does not know about the real history of your religion (please don’t take offence at this, it is a common thing), and so you edit in good faith that your indoctrinated info from the watchtower org is correct. Please do some detailed research before you vandalise many editors' hard work. Wikepedia is here for accurate information, be it good or bad, but not public relations platform for religious groups and their biases. You have also repeatedly changed long accepted text with no discussion. Can I suggest you look up the 14 pages of talk and read them all carefully before you abuse the hard work of others with your grossly biased unauthorized edits. Best wishes. Elenap 17th of September, 2005 PS. For more info, read some oh the Watchtower org’s published material here. 1914, 1975, and the whole lot (four pages)
Elenap: Your attempt to portray your eschatology section as a settled and accepted edit is 'grossly dishonest.' This section has caused dissension every time you have made it. You bring an agenda to this page, as is clear to all from your comments above. My edits made clear the history of failed interpretation by the Witnesses without descending to calumny; you cannot say the same. Witness literature inclines to hair-splitting, you clearly are inclined to misrepresent its subtlety where convenient to your agenda. Further, you exhibit basic misunderstanding of my clear prose. Is this due to poor reading comprehension or to the blinders of bias? --BEN Sep 19 2005
Hello Ben. May I start by noting that you have not attended to a single point I have made, but merely made unfounded protestations without any factual evidence to back them; please write all sources and proof if you have a factual point to make? These reverts to the long-standing article were not my writings, they were edits back to a well-accepted compromise (a fact you surreptitiously ignore), and the main text has been in an approved state for months now. Two separate administrators are happily with its compromise from both sides, but you appear to think you can smash in here like a bull in a china store, and rearrange the whole lot based on your own religious biases and PR campaigns for the Watchtower org. As I kindly pointed out Ben, please read all the talk pages, yes all 14 of them before you do any more vandalizing, and make casual unfounded accusations. These subjects have been debated many times and a common compromise was reached months ago, which you appear clearly not interested in. Your selfishness in trying to destroy the hard work of others and their extensive debates on these matters is quite typical of many with your religious background (the blinkered view that any method is acceptable if it makes the JWs look good in the public eye). Censorship is not welcome here, especially when it has a blatant religious agenda and bias. You have failed to make a single point of valid criticism that has not been discussed at great length before (please go and read all 14 pages of talk) as you might start to understand why you are being so unreasonable and astoundingly narrow-minded. Wikipedia is here for factual information, not public relation promotions for religious sects; if you want that then go to the Watchtower's website. If you have a specific point with referenced proof and backup, then bring it here and discuss it, but please check it has not already been done before, and please don't come out with more nebulous vague accusation with no specific point or proof. If you have facts you feel are incorrect, then produce your documented proof with references, then it can be discussed here in a mature way, before any possible changes are made. Your current behaviour is highly offensive to all editors and contributors to Wikipedia. Regards. Elenap 20th of September, 2005
Ben, understood. This explanation was what was missing. BTW, you should consider becoming a registered user. It only takes a minute and has many benefits. Also, you can automatically insert your signature at the end of posts using the second to last button at the top of these edit boxes. --DannyMuse 18:58, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Unbelievers eternally destroyed?

This section has become very longwinded, so I will add at the top. Witnesses often refer to Zephaniah 2:3 to indicate that not even all Witnesses will survive through Armageddon. On that basis, in addition to many JW publications already quoted in this section, there is little reason to suggest that JW doctrine actually allows for non-Witnesses to survive, though that impression is sometimes given when it is to appear a little more friendly.--Jeffro77 00:45, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Okay, to keep this from becoming an edit war, let's talk about it here. An anonymous editor (*ahem* yeah, sure) keeps insisting that JWs believe that both the wicked and unbelievers will be destroyed eternally at Armageddon. His justification is the book Reasoning from the Scriptures p.47 title "Will the destruction be forever?" (published by the WTB&TS) Quoted here:

Will the destruction be forever?
Matt 25:46: "These [who refused to do good to Christ's "brothers"] will depart into everlasting cutting-off."
2 Thess. 1:8, 9: "Those who do not know God and those who do not obey the good news about our Lord Jesus ... will undergo the judicial punishment of everlasting destruction."

Okay, I think it's obvious that this doesn't prove that JWs think unbelievers will be destroyed at Armageddon. The phrase 'not know God' often is used to mean those who refuse to know or obey God, not those who are ignorant of his laws and purpose. Rather than getting into the long, drawn out, heated, and often emotionally charged debates certain users here seem to start whenever conflicts come up, let me answer by quoting some relevant JW literature on the matter:

From the Revelation book; which is more or less the most up to date publication outlining JW beliefs of the events leading up to and surrounding Armageddon (ch 1, page 6, paragraph 5):
"True, Armageddon is described in the last book of the Bible as 'the war of the great day of God the Almighty." (Revelation 16:14, 16) But it will be far different from a nuclear holocaust! Such a holocaust would likely mean the annihilation of all life on earth. On the contrary, God's word gives the happy assurance that only wicked opposers of God will be destroyed--by forces under God's control. (Psalm 37:9, 10; 145:20) A great crowd of humans, out of all nations, will survive the climax of divine judgement at armageddon."
From the Live Forever book (ch 19, page 155, paragraph 2):
"Unlike the wars of men, which kill both the good and the bad, Armageddon will destroy only the bad. (Psalm 92:7) Jehovah God will be the Judge, and he will remove any who willfully refuse to obey his righteous laws." (the emphasis was in the original text, I did not add it)
From The Watchtower (1999-03-01, page 21, paragraph 15):
"As to the people of our day, not all who are offered Jehovah's life-giving water accept it. (Isaiah 6:10) At Armageddon, all of those who have chosen to remain in a spiritually lifeless and sick condition will be given to salt, that is, destroyed forever. (Revelation 19:11-21)"

In all these passages, the words 'wicked,' 'willful,' and 'choice' are operative. JWs teach that the wicked (as defined by Jehovah God and nobody else) will be destroyed at Armageddon, whereas many others (including non-believers) will survive. Furthermore, they teach that a great number of unbelievers will be resurrected AFTER Armageddon along with believers. The current text of the article is either very misleading or totally incorrect, depending on your viewpoint. If we keep it, then the section would have to be expanded significantly to explain what I just have, and I don't think that's a necessary expansion to make.

Also, regarding the beard issue; I personally have family in Austria who are JWs, Elders, and have full beards. What is true here is that JWs are discouraged from wearing beards in areas where these might carry an air of unprofessionalism or smack of being unkempt (i.e. the United States). In many lands where beards are not viewed with any negative connotation, such as most of Europe, JWs are not discouraged from wearing them. The advice from the Watchtower society differs somewhat from area to area, just as traditions and cultures likewise differ across national, racial, financial, etc boundaries. I'm rephrasing that section just a bit to properly indicate that beards are only discouraged in some areas.

Also, please register a user name or use one of your previous names. -- uberpenguin 02:16, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Your beard edits look good and correct to me. As to my "previous names," I have not a clue as to what the heck you're talking about.
As to whether they believe that unbelievers will be destroyed at Armageddon, that's not what anyone was talking about. You stated in your edit summary that they apply Acts 24:15 to mean that some of those destroyed at Armageddon will be resurrected, which I shot down, and now you're changing your story to 'they don't believe that unbelievers will be destroyed at Armageddon after all.' You tried to refute argument A by bringing up issues against argument B. Not gonna work. Nevertheless, it is not hard to demonstrate that they do in fact believe that only they are going to survive Armageddon. Before I go on, I'll just observe that none of your quotes states or even implies that non-Jehovah's Witnesses will survive Armageddon. If they wanted to say that some unbelievers will survive, then they could have said that some unbelievers will survive.
"You Can Live Forever" book (which you quoted from), p. 255:
"You must be part of Jehovah's organization, doing God's will, in order to receive his blessing of everlasting life."
December 1, 1981 Watchtower, p. 27:
"Unless we are in touch with this channel of communication that God is using, we will not progress along the road to life, no matter how much Bible reading we do." I wonder where the alternative to "the road to life" might lead to....
September 1, 1989 Watchtower, p. 19:
"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."
There are undoubtedly many others that I didn't find in a few minutes of looking at limited sources. Still wanna argue that they don't in fact believe that "only Jehovah's Witnesses... have any Scriptural hope of surviving the impending end of this doomed system?"66.158.232.37 11:11, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
First off, you're right that I kinda hopped between issues at first. I appologize for the confusion in that short edit summary. The issue here is obviously regarding who will be destroyed at Armageddon. However, the resurrection issue is equally important, because many readers might assume when the article states 'JWs believe all unbelievers are destroyed' that it means unbelievers have no hope of life after Armageddon per JW belief. That is most certainly not the case, and I don't believe that is the point you are trying to make here.
I don't see how the quotes you give contradict what I am saying, or more likely, I am not being specific enough. JWs believe that ultimately God decides who is and is not destroyed at Armageddon. It is totally true that only JWs "have any Scriptural hope of surviving," but that does not in itself mean that God will not also spare other non-believers at Armageddon. It also doesn't mean that every person who associates themselves with JWs are guaranteed passage through Armageddon.
I reiterate; ultimately only God can decide. The matter of EXACTLY who will survive is not totally resolved by the Bible, and JWs are never very specific about this, stating that only God will know at that time. Really the only class that is singled out for a SURE fate at Armageddon are 'the wicked.' The article should reflect this, stating who JWs believe for a certainty will be destroyed at Armageddon, and not getting into the much more complex and vague issue of who will not be destroyed. The quotes you give do not resolve the issue for your standpoint. The first quote from the Live Forever book does not even directly pertain to Armageddon; it applies more to what will happen AFTER Armageddon, since (per JW belief) at that time many will be resurrected and given the chance to become "part of Jehovah's organization, doing God's will..."
In brief summary, in speaking of JWs belief of Armageddon events, it is much more accurate and correct to talk about the class of people who JWs believe WILL be destroyed (the wicked) than those whose fate is uncertain (unbelievers). If we revise the text to reflect something along the lines of the uncertain fate of unbelievers, that is also perfectly acceptable, though perhaps a bit too wordy (I dunno, I'll defer to the other editors on deciding that much). -- uberpenguin 19:00, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
They certainly do believe that some unbelievers will be resurrected, but the article doesn't contradict that. The sentence before the one that talks about unbelievers being destroyed explicitly says that we're talking about their "viewpoint of the 'end of the world'". But if you wish to clarify that further, then go ahead, since you are absolutely correct about that belief they hold. In fact, if it really is ambiguous (which is up to you, since I already know their beliefs better than most of them do), I encourage you to clarify the point.
I am not sure how you can find that them stating that only they have hope of surviving leaves room for the hopeless to survive. If only they have hope, no one else has any hope. What you state at the end of your second paragraph ("it also doesn't mean that every person who associates themselves with JWs are guaranteed passage through Armageddon") is how they apply the God-is-the-judge piece of obviousness, to keep people in line and striving harder and whatnot. Saying that God will be their final judge, besides being obvious, doesn't mean that they teach that anyone that isn't a Jehovah's Witness has any hope of surviving. It's a way to get them to not look up to or down at each other (too much), not a statement that non-Jehovah's Witnesses actually have any hope. If they believed that anyone but Jehovah's Witnesses will get through Armageddon, they've had well over a century to have said so somewhere. Stating that they believe that unbelievers will or might get through is to assign them a belief that they themselves have not assigned to themselves. To them, the wicked is everyone in the world at large, not the same thing that everyone else means when they use the word "wicked." When they say 'Jehovah's Witnesses this, and the wicked that,' they're not leaving any middle ground, in their minds. If you're not with them, you're against them at Armageddon. Nevertheless, here are some more quotes with varying degrees of relevance to the issue.
"What Does God Require of Us?", p. 13:
"Soon Jesus will judge people, separating them as a shepherd separates sheep from goats. The 'sheep' are those who will have proved themselves his loyal subjects. They will receive everlasting life on earth.... If you want to be one of Jesus' 'sheep,' you must listen to the Kingdom message and act on what you learn." Note that the sheep have to prove themselves (and the last sentence even clarifies that that involves listening to their message and acting on it, i.e. becoming one of them). That doesn't leave space for unbelievers.
"What Does God Require of Us?", p. 30:
"Such knowledge is essential in order for you to gain eternal life. However, others also need to hear the good news so that they too can be saved." That quote is quite clear, and doesn't leave room for unbelievers. And don't give me that 'they just need to hear it, so what if it goes in one ear and out the other,' because I think I'll just drop out of this conversation if you do.
"The Greatest Man Who Ever Lived", very last page (when was the last time you saw a book with no page numbers?):
"All who would gain everlasting life must take in knowledge not only of God but also of his Son, Jesus Christ." Notice that "all... must." Surely I don't have to find a bunch of quotes to convince you of what they consider to be the only source of 'real' knowledge of God and Jesus, as opposed to everyone else's lies and false crap.
"Revelation" book, p. 8:
"If you want to survive into that new world, it is urgent, yes, mandatory, that you pay attention to Revelation's graphic description of the epoch-making climax now at hand." Here we have that this stuff is mandatory, again leaving no ambiguity for unbelievers. Again, they believe that they're the only source of biblical enlightenment in the world, so it wouldn't even be possible to "pay attention" by listening to "Babylon the Great," who they say will be destroyed with all its members, although if someone did then come to believe this stuff they wouldn't really be an unbeliever any more anyway.
"Revelation" book, p. 129:
[After going on for pages and pages about how they're gathering together the "great crowd"] "There is no evidence that any apart from these two groups [the 144,000 and the "great crowd"] will 'stand' in the day of Jehovah's wrath." They themselves are saying that there's no evidence that anyone else is surviving, unbelievers or whoever, with the obvious implication that they don't believe that anyone else is surviving. To hold that they actually believe that others will survive would just be asinine arguing for the sake of arguing.
"Revelation" book, pp. 223-4:
"By reason of community responsibility, mankind is guilty of gross shedding of innocent blood. When Jehovah's day of anger arrives, they will literally die at the hands of his executional forces." They state that mankind, period, is screwed, except for them presumably. Again, there's no avenue left for some to not die.
"Revelation" book, p. 225:
"Today, though, during the spiritual plague, there is nowhere in Satan's world that people can find life-giving waters. The pouring out of this third bowl involves proclaiming that the world's 'rivers and the fountains of the waters' are as blood, bringing spiritual death to all who imbibe them. Unless people turn to Jehovah, they reap his adverse judgement." Again, a pretty clear statement that everyone else is screwed.
"Revelation" book, p. 234:
"It is the satanic 'air' breathed by the world today, the spirit, or general mental inclination, that characterizes his whole wicked system of things, the satanic thinking that permeates every aspect of life outside Jehovah's organization." So if you're not in "Jehovah's organization," you're breathing satanic "air," you're part of the "whole wicked system of things," and every aspect of your life is permeated by "satanic thinking." By the way, this is actually a discussion of Armageddon itself, the seventh bowl.
"Knowledge" book, p. 183:
[Regarding Armageddon] "All who oppose God's Kingdom and who are a part of Satan's wicked system will be eliminated. Only those loyal to Jehovah will survive." Again, everyone that's a part of Satan's system dies, which in Jehovah's Witness-ish means 'everyone that's not a Jehovah's Witness.' As if that wasn't clear enough, it then explicitly says that "only those loyal to Jehovah will survive," which kind of eliminates unbelievers, and everyone else for that matter, especially in Jehovah's Witness World where they're Jehovah's only loyal servants.
"You Can Live Forever in Paradise on Earth", p. 190:
"Since the Bible shows that practicing true religion... opens the way to enjoy everlasting life in paradise on earth, it surely will be worth your while to make such an investigation." Note that this is what opens to way to the possibility of everlasting life. Which implies that otherwise said way isn't open.
"You Can Live Forever in Paradise on Earth", pp. 210-1:
"The organized human society under Satan the Devil is indeed wicked and corrupt. It is opposed to God's righteous laws, and it is filled with all kinds of immoral practices." Well, there you have them equating human society with wickedness, as opposed to what you were claiming, that they only consider some individuals to be wicked.
"You Can Live Forever in Paradise on Earth", p. 216:
"For remember, if you are not serving Jehovah, then you are serving Satan." There's some of the 'with us or against us' business I mentioned earlier. They claim to be the only people serving Jehovah, leaving everyone else as a servant of Satan. Surely you're not fixing to argue that they believe that God will save some servants of Satan at Armageddon.
"You Can Live Forever in Paradise on Earth", p. 250:
"But living then depends upon your doing God's will now." Kind of eliminates unbelievers, since they don't believe anyone else is doing God's will.
"You Can Live Forever in Paradise on Earth", pp. 252-3:
"Others must know the things you have learned about God's purposes if they are to survive this system's end and live forever." Notice the word "must." No space for unbelievers, since anyone who knows these things and rejects them would then go under the category of wicked or willful rejecter or whatever.
That quote that you say doesn't apply, by the way, does apply. The paragraph is talking about surviving into the "new system," surviving the "great tribulation," etc. It may also apply for after Armageddon, but that paragraph is talking about surviving Armageddon.
In any case, I've spent a lot more hours than I wanted to researching this stuff by hand. There are tons and tons of other books, magazines, brochures, tracts, and other publications that undoubtedly have even better quotes. Regardless, I'm done arguing this case with you if this still doesn't convince you. The dichotomy between the wicked and unbelievers is just an artificial one that you made up. In most of their pronouncements, they refer to the world at large, with whatever adjectives they deem appropriate, with "wicked" being only one of them. The fact is, they paint the entire world ("world" here meaning everyone that's not a Jehovah's Witness) with one big brush. If these quotes don't convince you of that, I'm not sure that anything will, not because it's not true, but because you don't want to believe it (or at least confess to it publicly) for some reason. The fate of unbelievers is not uncertain to them, they're just another part of the big bad world that Satan runs.66.158.232.37 08:29, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
The whole issue is that 'hope of surivival' means that JWs have a promise from God that many of them will survive Armageddon. No hope of survival means no promises, but it does not explicitly mean that no non-believers will survive. I believe the problem is an unfortunately irreconcilible difference of view. My POV is that of an active JW, and yours is of someone who cut ties with JWs, possibly on bad terms. You have made the point, that I do not disagree with, that JWs teach that only believers (still alive at Armageddon) have the hope, or promise of surviving Armageddon. However, you read into this the subtext that this means all unbelievers will be destroyed. I, on the other hand, say this does not explicitly mean anything about unbelievers. JWs' Biblical interpretation of what the fate of unbelievers is at Armageddon is not totally specific. Your claim that there is no distinction between the wicked and unbelievers doesn't hold water, since these two classes of people are often differentiated by JW doctrine, especially their beliefs on the post-Armageddon resurrection.
Don't get me wrong, I see your point of view, understand it, and am not trying to be combattive with you. Please do not assume that just because I don't agree with your point of view on JW doctrine that I'm being stubborn or beligerent about the matter. I really do feel it's silly to argue over a phrasing of just one or two words. However, I take serious issue with the claim that JWs believe that all unbelievers are destroyed at Armageddon. That is not the official stance of the organization. In reality the organization doesn't really HAVE an official stance on that very specific question; their official beliefs only cover believers and the wicked, whose fates are predicted. Most JWs wouldn't agree with the statement as it is made, either. If the official stance of the organization isn't specific on this matter, and most JWs would say that the fate of unbelievers is uncertain at Armageddon, then should the article state that JWs teach that unbelievers will assuredly be destroyed at Armageddon because that is the interpretation that you read into the uncertainty? I don't believe so. Of course, I'm totally willing to continue discussing this until we're able to come to some sort of compromise, and I will not change the verbage until then.
One thing I do agree with is that the article needs to be a little more specific about the resurrection. A single sentence stating that JWs believe that both the 'righteous' and the 'unrighteous' (unbelievers) will be resurrected should be adequate, so I'll update the section with this. By the way, please create an account and log in... If you're going to make serious contributions you really should do so under a pseudonym of some sort. Also, if you don't want to discuss this further, we need to find a third party to resolve this issue. Respectfully yours, -- uberpenguin 15:26, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
Good to know I stayed up all night hand-researching like 15 more quotes so that you could ignore everything and say the same old crap I was responding to. No hope doesn't mean no promises, by the way, it means no hope; if they had meant no promises, they could have said no promises. If you have no hope of something, it means it ain't happening, period. But it doesn't even really matter, because that was one out of like 20 quotes I presented, the rest of which you find convenient to ignore. As fun as jumping into your ad hominem stuff might seem, considering that you have reason to downplay the more unsavory doctrines in public and that you are a member of an organization that condones lying if there's a good "theocratic warfare" reason or if you just plain think that the person isn't "entitled" to know the truth (http://quotes.watchtower.ca/lie.htm, because I know what the next question was going to be), I think I'll refrain.66.158.232.37 04:43, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
And it's good to know that Eyesopen/Central is still picking the same word battles as he always has. Your diction is never hard to spot; I don't understand why you don't just use your old accounts. Since we are obviously at an impass, I'll request third-party mediation. -- uberpenguin 13:29, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
I am not poster 66.158.232.37 and I have no reason to not post under my own log-on name, Central. Your ad hominem attack comes up due to your paranoid desperation to deflect reality. I find it fascinating that you are so massively insecure and paranoid that you have to create this fabricated world in your mind that I alone, out of over 6.2 billion humans on this planet, must be the only one who has a problem with your religious organization's false doctrines and machinations. Flattered as I am, I am not that big a player in world events. Not only have you ignored the previous poster's points (which is insulting and condescending), but you have wonderfully illustrated how your mind works, and how incredibly paranoid and scared you are of dealing with reality. So terrified in fact that you have to somehow delude that I alone am the one poster on earth that might not like what the Watch Tower Society stands for, and you can't even see how desperately irrational you are being. But we all know your real reasons for focussing on me, and it's more escapism from uncomfortable reality, I am just a pawn that you have chosen this time, another time it will one million and one reasons to not deal with someone's pertinent points about your religious leaders.
You Uberpenguin, unreasonably delude yourself that if I had posted the material about "who dies at Armageddon" then all the facts of the argument by posted 66.158.232.37 can somehow be totally ignored due to you not liking me, or my previous posts on other subjects. You cannot see how you are being highly irrational, as 2+2=4 regardless of who states the equation, be it 66.158.232.37 , Einstein, Big Bird of Sesame Street, or Charles Taze Russell. I'm actually glad you have outed your paranoia and ad hominem reality deflecting practices, as you have demonstrated that you are not willing to look at reality objectively, and when forced to by someone, you freak out in desperation by somehow clinging to the idea that if you can change the subject enough times, ignore the content of the argument, and then focus on someone else in true ad hominem fashion, it will all go away in a big puff of pink smoke and all will be well in the Jehovah's Witness "spiritual paradise" la la land. (Picture Telly Tubbies singing and running about in a field waving their hands). uberpenguin Please get some knowledge on what your religious leader have done to you, and how irrational you are being. I suggest you learn about common mind control first, there are two articles here for starters, 1, 2 that is if you can bear to read past the first sentence without getting attacks of cognitive dissonance as your programming kicks in. Bye for now, and again I am not poster 66.158.232.37, but I doubt you can handle that reality just yet. I pity your obsession with me. Posted Central 29 September 2005.
I refuse to be baited into another one of your worthless rants by your customary string of personal insults and attacks. Just know that if you write any more personal insults like this, I will report you to administration. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong, you could have just said that without all the drama. However, I stand firmly by my suspicion. I am loathe to point out that of the roughly 700 million people in the world with internet access, only about 6 million frequent en.wikipedia.org, and of those considerably few take a SINGULAR interest in this and other JW-related articles. You are known to have used multiple accounts before, and given the very similar posting styles and intent of you and the anonymous editor, I my strong suspiscion remains. Regardless, you are not allowed to insult or demean others here, and you will be reported next time you do it. -- uberpenguin 18:40, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
Way to do exactly as he just finished saying in your 'rebuttal' to him. Since you think that him and I are the same person, I motion that we officially declare you to be the same person as everyone else that supports Jehovah's Witnesses on the Internet. Not that your pissing and moaning over who's who has the slightest bearing on presented facts.66.158.232.37 22:46, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
I don't want to derail this conversation any further, so I'm ignoring your personal insults. I do not need to resort to tactics like sarcasm, attacks on you personally, nor attacks on your beliefs to make my point, and I request that you show me the same courtesy. I do not reject your edit on the grounds that you are some previous editor; I reject it on the grounds that it is incorrect. It was my mistake to mention my suspicion as to your identity here since it only makes me guilty of detracting from the point I'm trying to get across. I appologize for this silly diversion and will not make any further mention of nor accusation as to your identity. I now only address what is incorrect in your claims and reasoning.
Our going back and forth gets this conversation nowhere, so I will summarize my points as succinctly as possible, request that you do the same, and then (if it is acceptable to you), go through the formal request for third party mediation so we can resolve this. Arguing irreconcilable points of view accomplishes nothing.

Summary of my position:

It is neither the official stance of JWs as an organization, nor the general belief of adherents to the religion that "all unbelievers will be destroyed at Armageddon" as the article currently suggests. None of the cited works conflict with this view, as they clearly state that JWs are the only organization as a whole that have any hope of survival of Armageddon. While this could be interpreted as a fundamental contradiction (as the anonymous editor points out), it is not seen that way by Witnesses themselves. The Bible is not specific on the fates of those classified as `unrighteous' (unbelievers, from the JW point of view) at Armageddon, and therefore you will not find any JW publication that specifically states their fate at that point in time. The crux of the matter in this conversation has been the assumption by the anonymous editor that JWs' claim that they are the only group with the hope of survival at Armageddon neccissarily means that no other persons will survive. Both in the Greek scriptures and in modern language, the word 'hope' is often used to mean an expectation. While unbelievers have no hope, or expectation, of survival, they might have the chance of survival. I reiterate, JWs have the hope (expectation) of survival, unrighteous ones have the chance of survival, both solely at the discression of Jehovah. The fact of the matter is that neither the Bible nor JWs claim for a certainty the fates of unrighteous ones at Armageddon, which is why JW literature encourages readers to ensure they are truly members of the group that is marked for survival. The ideas expressed here are also backed up by JWs beliefs regarding the post-Armageddon resurrection, but since this is not a question of JWs' justification for their beliefs, but this belief in particular, I will omit this explanation for brevity unless it is requested that I add it.
I will not debate this further, but I will provide clarification or further explanation if it is requested by a third party mediator. For the record, my point of view is that of an active JW that wishes to correct the incorrect statement described above. -- uberpenguin 02:05, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
Wow, the guy who started all the ad hominem business running and claiming that he's being personally attacked and pretending to be on some kind of high road. Whatever. My replies to what is mainly repetition ad nauseam can be found in post after post above, to which you invariably, including now, reply with... the exact same argument that was replied to.66.158.232.37 02:52, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
Do you agree to third-party mediation per Wikipedia policy or not? Please answer. -- uberpenguin 03:31, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
Seeing as you Uberpenguin, provoked me to respond into this dabate, here are some texts I've found to add to the pertinent points of poster 66.158.232.37 that you seem so very keen to ignore.
"The afternoon session was the time for the public talk "The Only Way to Everlasting Life." . . . the speaker concluded with these thought-provoking words: . . .'Your own ears will hear a word behind you saying: "This is the way. Walk in it, you people," in case you people should go to the right or in case you should go to the left.' How do we hear this voice? . . by following the direction that our Grand Instructor, Jehovah God, provides through it and through his modern-day Christian organization. Indeed, to do this is the 'only way to everlasting life'."—Watchtower magazine 15 January 1999, p.9 (no other methods of salvation are even hinted at!)


"The Watch Tower has shown from the Scriptures that there are just two principal organizations—Jehovah's and Satan's. And, as 1 John 5:19 states, "the whole world"—that is, all mankind outside of Jehovah's organization—"is lying in the power of the wicked one. . . But why does God permit it? Is any good being accomplished? Jesus Christ explained that before he as heavenly King would crush Satan and his wicked organization, there would be a separating of people of all nations, as a Middle Eastern shepherd separates sheep from goats. People would be given opportunity to hear about the Kingdom of God and to take their stand on its side.."—Proclaimers book, 1993, p.676


"But to what was Jesus referring when he said "the world"? In the Bible the expression "the world" sometimes simply means humankind in general. God sent his Son to give his life as a ransom for this world of humankind. (John 3:16) Yet Satan has organized most of humankind in opposition to God. So 'Satan's world is this organized human society that exists apart from or outside of God's visible organization'."—Live Forever book, 1982, 1989, p. 209


"Jesus' presence (Greek, parousia) has been demonstrated from 1914 onward by the exposing and judging of the man of lawlessness, the clergy of Christendom. That presence will be strikingly manifested when the ten horns of the scarlet-colored wild beast execute that judgment and ravage Christendom, along with the rest of Babylon the Great. (2 Thessalonians 2:1-3, 8) That will be the start of the great tribulation! After that, Jesus turns his attention to what remains of Satan's organization, in line with the prophecy: "He must strike the earth with the rod of his mouth; and with the spirit of his lips he will put the wicked one to death. . . That will be a day of doom, indeed, for disobedient nations and humans but a day of relief for all who have made Jehovah and his Warrior-King their refuge! . . . In Ezekiel's vision, after the destruction of Gog's crowd, the birds and the wild animals are invited to a feast! They rid the landscape of carcasses by eating the dead bodies of Jehovah's enemies. (Ezekiel 39:11, 17-20) . . .Revelation 19:17, 18. The angel is "standing in the sun," a commanding position for attracting the attention of the birds. He invites them to be ready to gorge themselves on the flesh of those about to be slain by the Warrior-King and his heavenly armies. The fact that the dead are to be left on the surface of the ground indicates that they will die in public shame. . . . The list of those whose corpses would be left lying there shows the range of the destruction: kings, military commanders, strong men, freemen, and slaves. No exceptions. Every last trace of the rebellious world in opposition to Jehovah will be eliminated. After this, there will no more be a restless sea of confused humans. (Revelation 21:1) This is "the great evening meal of God," since it is Jehovah who invites the birds to share therein... . . In this way, all of Satan's earthly organization comes to an end. The "former heaven" of political rulership has passed away. The "earth," the seemingly permanent system that Satan has built up over the centuries, is now utterly destroyed. The "sea," the mass of wicked humanity opposed to Jehovah, is no more."-Isaiah 11:4.—Revelation book, 1988, pp. 282-286 (Note! Anyone who is not a JW is automatically classed as the "mass of wicked humanity opposed to Jehovah", and will be eternally destroyed. This includes ex-JWs, non-believers, agnostics, Christians who are not JWs, and all others of humanity.)
Clear conclusion according to Watch Tower doctrine:
1. There are only two recognized organization in the world, they being Jehovah's Witnesses and their Watch Tower Society, and everyone else who is not a JW or not actively associating with them.
2. Only one organization will be saved, no maybe, just one, and that is "Jehovah's organization" i.e., Jehovah's Witnesses and their Watch Tower Society.
3. If you are not a Jehovah's Witness or actively associating with them at Armageddon, you are going to be obliterated for all eternity, no ifs, or buts, just total annihilation, as you are automatically part of "Satan's Organization". And Satan's organization is going to be wiped out totally, according to the text above, and all those quotes posted by 66.158.232.37 and countless hundreds of other texts in the Watch Tower's official literature saying the same thing. There are no other possible routes to salvation given. Even sincere Christians who are not JWs, and that meet all of Jesus' biblical requirements for salvation are still not worthy according to the Watch Tower Society's teachings. If you Uberpenguin, claim otherwise, you are not being honest to yourself or others reading these posts, or you are just projecting your personal views rather than the doctrines of the Watch Tower Society. What you personally think, or the Bible teaches is not relevant here, it's about what Jehovah's Witnesses' religion teaches as doctrine.
One final quote:
"Do not conclude that there are different roads, or ways, that you can follow to gain life in God's new system. There is only one. There was just the one ark that survived the Flood, not a number of boats. And there will be only one organization—God's visible organization—that will survive the fast-approaching "great tribulation." It is simply not true that all religions lead to the same goal. (Matthew 7:21-23; 24:21) You must be part of Jehovah's organization, doing God's will, in order to receive his blessing of everlasting life"—Live Forever book, 1982, 1989, p.255. Posted by Central 30 September 2005
All of these quotes do not apply AT Armageddon, but afterwards. By your interpretation you deny that JWs believe that many unrighteous will be resurrected after Armageddon (this is the very point that the anonymous editor asked me to keep OUT of this discussion because it was irrelevant to the point he was making). Yes, people must be part of Jehovah's organization to gain everlasting life, but per JW belief the cutoff for that is a thousand years AFTER Armageddon, not AT Armageddon. I assumed that you would know this since we are discussing such a fine point of JW doctrine. Please stop confusing the issue by ignoring the 1000 year period after Armageddon during which the unrighteous are given another chance to become part of "Jehovah's organization." Armageddon is NOT the final judgement according to JW beliefs; if you know this then you should have never brought up post-Armageddon events in a discussion that is obviously about Armageddon. If you didn't know this, please do some more research; JWs' "Revelation" book describes all of the events surrounding and following Armageddon. Let me be clear: you are either intentionally or unintentionally relating Armageddon to final judgement and being 'saved' or 'not saved.' This is TOTALLY false by JW doctrine; it completely ignores their entire concept of the 'second death.' Therefore any literature that talks about the requirement of being part of Jehovah's organization to be saved is NOT referring to surviving Armageddon, but resurrection, everlasting life, etc; all post-Armageddon.
Thank you for summarising your position; I still await the answer to the question of whether the anonymous user agrees with your summary and agrees to third-party mediation on this issue. -- uberpenguin 15:18, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
I'm not exactly sure how you think I should agree to anything. You've ignored like 98% of what I've said, and you want to waste someone else's time (and hope they bail you out)? Trying to ignore 98% of my argument and squirm out of this ain't gonna work. You can't run off and try to get third-party opinions on all those quotes when you yourself haven't even said why you think they don't say what they say. There's not much to mediate until you quit stalling and taking the 'I can't hear you' defense and all-around screwing around, and actually present your story as to why all those quotes taken directly from Watchtower publications are invalid. Oh, and now Central has posted some more excellent quotes that you need to respond to too (and not with 'they're wrong because I say they are'). What are you scared of? Is your religion a little too unsavory, at least for the public? Do facts just hurt your faith in your religion?66.158.232.37 15:57, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
P.S. Since you posted the above and I am now merging everything together, I might as well respond to what you wrote. Your assertion that those quotes only apply to after Armageddon is just plain false. They speak of things in the present like "his modern-day Christian organization," "that will survive the fast-approaching 'great tribulation'," and about a hundred other phrases that indicate and/or explicitly say that they're talking about before Armageddon and what happens at Armageddon, while not a single one says anything about only applying after Armageddon. None of these quotes are talking about the thousand years after Armageddon, they're all talking about the present ("present" meaning 'until Armageddon, the Great Tribulation, whatever'). Just because you declare that they're talking about something else doesn't make it so, and anyone with the most basic reading skills can see what they're talking about.66.158.232.37 15:57, 30 September 2005 (UTC)


Uberpenguin. 1. All the quotes were about Armageddon and the destruction of humanity not part of the JW's religion at the end of this system, before the 1,000 year reign of Christ. 2. I am fully aware of the resurrection doctrines, and as you have been told, it's a red-herring and irrelevant to the Armageddon points. 3. Those who die are those contemporary to Armageddon, so if the end came tomorrow, it would be the 6+ billion humans alive now, not those already dead from the past 6,000 years, and you know this! Why are you creating a Straw Man diversion? All Jehovah's witnesses' teachings state at Armageddon those alive when it breaks out will have had their chance to show if they want to join JWs ("God's organization") or not, those that decline the offer are eternally wiped out. All this 1,000-year reign you erroneously bring up has nothing whatsoever to do with those who are killed at Armageddon, as the resurrected during the 1,000 years were already dead in the past according to JW doctrine, before Armageddon happened. Those alive when this system ends are grouped classed at Armageddon with "Satan's Organization" (as all the quotes prove), and you already know this too! Why do you keep bringing up the resurrection, and the final judgement? You know it does not apply to the same people, and is off topic and only thrown in by you to divert the subject off on a tangent. The original point was "do unbelievers (who are living) die at Armageddon", and the unequivocal answer is yes, yes and yes according to the Watch Tower Society's doctrines.
Please read the quotes again as they are very clear, and all about what your religion believes God will do to those who are not part of the Watch Tower's group. I also forgot to post this gem of loving compassion I found, along with a picture. Here is the text (and please note it's about those alive at Armageddon, not the final judgement.)
"Soul-chilling terror will spread through the masses of people so that they will lose control of themselves; they will begin killing one another. "On that day a great panic from the LORD [Jehovah] shall fall on them, so that each will lay hold on the hand of his fellow, and the hand of the one will be raised against the hand of the other." (Zechariah 14:12, RS) Then "every man's sword shall be against his brother." (Ezekiel 38:2), AS) But their selfish fight to live will be all in vain. Those who escape being killed by their neighbors will be destroyed by God's heavenly armies. Christ's angels will smite all the opposers of Gods kingdom and his kingdom witnesses with a terrible destruction. A flesh-eating plague will destroy many. Says Jehovah: Their flesh shall rot wile they are still on their feet, their eyes shall rot in their sockets, and their tongues shall rot in their mouths. (Zechariah 14;12, RS) Eaten up will be the tongues of those who scoffed and laughed at the warning of Armageddon! Eaten up will be the eyes of those who refused to see the sign of the time of the end! Eaten up will be the flesh of those who would not learn that the living and true God is named Jehovah! Eaten up while they stand on their feet! Where can people hide from this destruction coming from God? Nowhere! Jehovah says: Not one of them shall escape. Dead bodies will be everywhere from end to end of the earth. Says Jehovah: I will call for a sword upon all the inhabitants of the earth. Ungathered, unburied, unwept for, the bodies will be like so much fertilizer on the ground, just as the Bible says: The slain of Jehovah shall be at that day from one end of the earth even unto the other end of the earth: they shall not be lamented, neither gathered, nor buried; they shall be dung upon the face of the ground."-Paradise Lost to Paradise Regained (book) 1958 pp.208-209
Beautiful and loving portrayal eh? Anyone who is not a JW at Armageddon is history, bird food, and scum, no mater how kind, loving or Christian they were, if they are not a JW, or on their way to becoming one, they are history! You can see the scanned picture here. and some more gems of loving kindness here. So, Uberpenguin, you better run along to that Kingdom Hall, and stay off Satan's Internet, or you will be next in line for bird seed! Can ya feel the love? Nope! Central 18:38, 30 September 2005 (UTC)


I have responded to your claims, you just don't like or agree with my response, which is why I'm suggesting a third party. I have stated multiple times that the quotes are not invalid but have rather said that the subtexts you are READING INTO THEM are incorrect and do not reflect the teaching or general view of JWs. But I digress, every response so far in this dialogue has basically been "you are totally wrong" followed by "no, you are totally wrong." We won't resolve anything this way, and thus need a third or fourth party. The other (bad) solution if we follow the history of this article is to simply revert it to the way it was before since no agreement on the new phrasing can be come to. I'm sure you wouldn't stand for this latter solution, so I'm asking you again if you would agree to mediation or a vote. We can't continue a futile argument (it wastes my time and yours), we can't ignore the issue, and I've already said everything that needs to be said. You are both just making the issue more complicated by bringing up unrelated points of JW doctrine. Therefore we need either mediation or just to take a vote among the authors who regularly contribute to this article. There's no point in arguing this further since it's become nothing more than a messy war of words. If you cannot agree to take a vote or to mediation, then I'll request arbitration, which is not a nice step to have to take for any of the parties involved, so I'd rather avoid it. -- uberpenguin 16:11, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
Repeating the same old crap about one single quote out of like 20 (does 'hope doesn't mean hope' sound familiar?) doesn't constitute a response to the rest of the quotes. You're hoping that if you don't address all the rest of those quotes they'll just go away or something. We're not making things more complicated by bringing up 'unrelated' stuff, you're making things more complicated by sticking your head in the sand, waving your hands around while declaring everything you don't like to be "unrelated" like it's actually true or something, and hoping everything goes away. As to the options you presented for resolving this, I don't know what to say. Going for a vote doesn't seem very intelligent, since a page about Jehovah's Witnesses is probably crawling full of... you guessed it, Jehovah's Witnesses (you yourself just finished remarking like yesterday how far-fetched you thought it was that Central and I could possibly be TWO different people), who are more likely to stand up for a member of their little religion, and have marching orders to lie and deceive and do whatever is convenient (as shown by their own publications above, should anyone else read this and think I'm making it up). I'm not sure what the difference is between mediation and arbitration (or what each specifically is, for that matter), so I can't give an opinion on them.66.158.232.37 16:42, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
(Watchtower 99 3/1 p. 21 Jehovah’s Blessing on Our “Land”) — 15 Of course, not all respond favorably now to the message of life; nor will all those who are resurrected during the Millennial Reign of Christ do so. (Isaiah 65:20; Revelation 21:8) The angel declares that parts of the sea are not healed. These marshy, lifeless places are ‘given to salt.’ (Ezekiel 47:11) As to the people of our day, not all who are offered Jehovah’s life-giving water accept it. (Isaiah 6:10) At Armageddon, all of those who have chosen to remain in a spiritually lifeless and sick condition will be given to salt, that is, destroyed forever. (Revelation 19:11-21) However, those who have been faithfully drinking these waters can hope to survive and see the final fulfillment of this prophecy.
(Watchtower 76 2/15 pp. 115-116 Jehovah’s Friend or the World’s Friend—Which?) — 9 You youths, especially, must be careful about imitating these people since your natural inclination is to imitate older ones. But these prominent people are just imperfect human creatures who will die at Armageddon, if they do not change their course and conform to the standards of Jehovah. Would it be wise, then, to walk with such persons by copying their ways? Would it not be better for you younger ones, as well as you adults, to hold in esteem those that have proved themselves to be friends of God—individuals like Moses, Joshua, David, Barak, Jephthah and Jesus? Others, too, such as Ruth, Rahab, Deborah and many, many more, have kept friendship with Jehovah and are truly worthy of our admiration and esteem. (Heb. 11:4-38) What about the modern examples of those that have remained friends with God? Wouldn’t you like to imitate the loyalty and endurance of your brothers who have withstood the brunt of dictatorships like Hitler’s Nazi regime or the Communist types, because they would not renounce their friendship with Jehovah? These and countless others that have walked with God down through the stream of time will be alive after the “great tribulation,” whereas the prominent friends of this world will be gone forever.—Ps. 37:10, 34, 38; Matt. 24:21, 22.
(Watchtower 67 10/1 p. 607 Preach Release to Babylon’s Captives) — It also means urgency. The end of this system of things is drawing on apace! All those destroyed with Babylon the Great or later at Armageddon cannot hope for a resurrection. Nor may we overlook the fact that it is those who get this release who will be sharing in the vindication of Jehovah’s name, making his heart glad.—Prov. 27:11.
uberpenguin: It is pretty clear that Central has a POV agenda. It is likewise clear that others have an opposite POV. I have been a baptised JW for 20 years and although I am inactive I know the doctrines of my religion and their foundations like the back of my hand. These quotes should, in a very NPOV manner, clear up any thinking that the doctrine of this religion allows for those destroyed at Armageddon to be resurrected. There is not even a hint of Armageddon survivors being included in the "resurrection of the...unrighteous" anywhere in the WT Library CD-ROM. But there are irrefutably direct statements to the contrary. In my opinion, there is no way to take this out of context. It is a directly asserted doctrine. The article I included from 1976 shows that those who do nothing more than "fail to conform" will be destroyed. That would include unbelievers. The Survival book makes it even more clear.
If a JW disagrees, they are directly and publicly challenging the teaching of the Governing Body (which I am not opposed to). There are dozens of examples, I pulled three. If you would like to consider more I will be happy to post them on your talk page. If any arbiter wishes to see more, I will happily oblige. Hopefully, these quotes will help clarify the issue for any dissenters. Respectfully, Evident 19:34, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
uberpenguin: It just occurred to me that this LONG dispute may have gotten sidetracked by the resurrection thing. Here is a direct quote from a 1993 Watcthower regarding the unbelievers who don't know that what they are doing conflicts with the Bible. There are many more like this, if you would like to consider them.
(Watchtower 93 10/1 p. 19 “Search Through Me, O God”) — 14 There are billions of people who do not know Jehovah. Many of them in ignorance practice things that God’s Word shows to be wicked. If they persist in this course, they will be among those who perish during the great tribulation. Yet, Jehovah takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked, nor should we. (Ezekiel 33:11) As long as time permits, we endeavor to help such people to learn and apply Jehovah’s ways. But what if some people show intense hatred for Jehovah?
I hope this helps clear things up. Again, I don't see how "reading into" this is possible. And when you consider the earlier quotes about those destroyed, I'm afraid Central's point is made concretely. It is current doctrine.--Evident 20:20, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
Thank you Evident, you're right that things got sidetracked on the resurrection. The issue was never "will those destroyed at Armageddon be resurrected," the answer to that is most certainly "no." The issue is, do JWs teach that all non-JWs ("actual" JWs, not simply those who claim to be) are automatically destroyed at Armageddon. The last WT93 quote is very helpful in finally shedding some light on this issue, as all the previous quotes have not addressed this issue. However, the article uses the term "wicked," which is not simply equated with sinfulness in any JW literature. My main issues are with the phrasing, which is often repetitive. See my below comments on this. -- uberpenguin 00:31, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
Please read: I've come to the realization that no amount of discussion here will resolve this issue. It could very well be that the way I've been taught to understand the WBTS' position on this matter is wrong, in which case I do not want to further waste other editors' valuable time. Therefore, if it pleases the interested parties, I will write a letter detailing the specific question at hand to the WBTS and see if they respond. I can think of no better way to resolve an issue involving "what does the organization behind JW literature teach" than to ask them directly. I will, of course, submit the phrasing for the question here before sending it so as to ensure that the question is adequately worded. Respectfully, uberpenguin 00:48, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
uberpenguin: LOL, I just got an edit conflict trying to post this —> "Just as the days of Noah were..." I'm sorry, my friend. This was a hard truth for me to wrap my head around, too. It is a large part of the reason I am currently inactive. But I have a letter from the Christian Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses that supports my view of their beliefs. If you have a question regarding this point, I suggest you write to them as well. Try to make your question as specific as possible because, in my experience, they tend to meander in their answers. <— Seems like we are of the same about what should be done. I think if your question is worded narrowly enough you will get a direct answer. You might also take a look at Survival Into a New Earth chap. 12 pp. 96-97 paragraphs 15-17 and the Insight on the Scriptures entry on "Wickedness." It may save you time. These were the references I was given. Respectfully, Evident 01:18, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
It's not difficult for me to wrap my mind around; I can see both interpretations in the mountain of quoted material here and what I have already read. It's just something that now seems to beg my attention to put some finality to. I'd be interested in seeing the letter that you received, if you'd like to share it, though I will probably still write to the WBTS for curiosity's sake. Anyway, I digress... -- uberpenguin 02:38, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
I should bring up a couple practical considerations. First, what happens if they write back saying something that contradicts all the quotes above? A letter from them is great and all, but Jehovah's Witnesses worldwide aren't taught from this hypothetical letter, they're taught from Watchtower publications, and it has already been shown above what they say. Second, and uberpenguin, don't think I'm calling you a liar, because I'm not, but what assurance does anyone else have that you have actually sent the letter claimed and received the claimed response? Anyone, uberpenguin, Tommstein, Central, Evident, and on down the infinite list can claim that they have in their possession a letter saying whatever they want and everyone should thus go along with what they say; evidence could even be fabricated. Just a couple things I thought I should bring up, because I can foresee all hell breaking loose should it be said that they wrote in a private letter something that opposes the masses of quotes from their publications. I don't see how this would actually resolve anything.Tommstein 06:50, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
Uberpenguin, I wouldn't hold you breath for a good answer from them. I wrote to them a few years ago on behalf of a JW friend who was too scared to, as he didn't want it backfiring on him. It was on a completely different subject, but I clearly remember his disappointment at the letter, as it was as woolly and wordy as you can imagine, said nothing new, in fact said virtually nothing, and could have been taken in half a dozen different ways depending on the background of the reader. It was just the usual fluff, and carefully worded double speak reply that says what they believe couched in PR related words that say nothing at all, especially if challenged.
It brings to mind a recent 'double speak' public statement made by some Muslim "leaders" in London after the recent bombings and deaths of 52 people. Their statement from a local mosque was "We thoroughly condemn the killings of the innocent people in these bombings", and all the press and left-wing apologists lapped it up, obsessively focussing on the very few Muslims who were coincidentally victims, and ignoring the majority of Christians and others who were the mass bulk of targeted victims. I saw only one article that actually got to the truth of the Muslims PR statement, and it pointed out the extreme teachings of this mosque, the members, and its leaders, and that they clearly and categorically only view Muslims as worthy of salvation, and therefore "innocent". All others (Christians, unbelievers, Jews etc.) were infidels, and below God's grace and classed worthless if they did not convert to Islam. It put in sharp focus the real statement, which actually meant "We thoroughly condemn the killings of our Muslim brothers in these bombings, but the rest had it coming as they were infidels". One public statement with no knowledge of the background of the beliefs can say one thing to the public, and be coded to mean something opposite when the believers hear it.
I think you will get the same mindset from the Watch Tower Society, as I have seen many testament letters with the same kind of replies. It will be interesting to see what they say, and maybe if you wrote two letters, one from a JW, and one purporting to be from a non-JW member of the public, if they would give the identical response to both letters or not, especially if they were posted from different areas of the country and worded in differing ways. Anyhow, as Tom has said, what difference will it make, if hundreds of statements in their literature say one thing, and your letter says another? It's like the '75 false prophecies, over 50 articles say '75 is the date, and about two articles back off just before it fell flat. The two or so do not outweigh the 50+ previously stated, especially when they are embedded in to the mind of the masses. I believe you will be disappointed with your letter, but maybe that is something you need to go through to open your eyes a bit more. Regards. Central 10:09, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
Can we please allow time for uberpenguin to research out the teachings regarding the man with the secretary's inkhorn? The conclusions are inescapable and the teachings are made crystal clear by the teachings on who it is marked for salvation, why they are marked, and what it is that happens to anyone who does not receive the mark. There are only two eventualities in the teachings, and there is only one criteria given in the teachings for receiving the mark.--Evident 12:21, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
Here is the section of text you are referring to about the marking for survival. I'm putting it here as many people interested in this discussion may not have the Watch Tower's CD ROM, or the book to read the text.Central 19:28, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
14 Many people are disillusioned with the churches and no longer attend. They may also be greatly disturbed about the violence and dishonesty in the world. But that does not necessarily mean that they are marked for survival. They must be marked by the 'man with the secretary's inkhorn.' The facts show that "the faithful and discreet slave" class is doing that marking work today.-Matthew 24:45-47.
15 All who want to be marked as having God's approval must accept the instruction that Jehovah is providing through that "slave" class and become true worshipers of Jehovah. They must not be persons who honor Jehovah with their mouths but who really love the world's ways. (Isaiah 29:13, 14; 1 John 2:15) They must love Jehovah and his standards and feel grieved at heart, "sighing and groaning," over teachings and practices that dishonor him. No one will put a literal ink mark on their forehead. But when they have the symbolic mark it will be obvious to all that, as dedicated, baptized Christians, they have put on the "new personality" described at Ephesians 4:24. They have a living faith. Publicly and privately they endeavor to do what will honor Jehovah. Not only persons who have come out of Christendom but all, regardless of background, who hope to survive into the "new earth" as associates of the anointed class must have this mark.
16 Particularly significant is the fact that Jehovah's executioners were told that age, sex, singleness or marriage relationship was no reason to spare an offender against Jehovah. A married person must individually have his or her mark in order to be spared. If parents resist having their children marked or if they fail to bring them up as servants of Jehovah, they must bear the responsibility for what happens to those children. Although obedient children of godly parents are viewed as "holy" by Jehovah, rebellious ones are not. (1 Corinthians 7:14; Psalm 102:28; Proverbs 20:11; 30:17) If children are old enough to become baptized Christians but do not want to live up to the requirements, whether they are baptized or not, their age will not result in their being spared. How vital, then, for each individual of responsible age to be clearly marked as a person dedicated to God and doing his will!
17 Jehovah has shown great compassion for mankind by sending his witnesses to warn them of impending destruction and to point the way to safety. But he well knows the record of false religion and the rotten fruitage that it has produced. When Babylon the Great is destroyed, no compassion will be shown for any who insist on clinging to it. To survive the coming execution of divine judgment, we must walk in the footsteps of Jesus Christ as true worshipers of Jehovah, the Creator of heaven and earth. Watch Tower publication-Survival Into a New Earth 1984 chap. 12 pp. 96-97
Speaking for myself, I have been following this discussion and I say interest was lost a long time ago. I believe the weight of quotes here detracts from the ability to understand the points made in this case. IMO, there is a lot to be said for finding succinct quotes and/or lines of reasoning that make the point clearly, rather than pages and pages of quotes that do not directly state what we want it to state. If someone doesn't want to see a doctrine that their own religion teaches, they won't see it. Please, no more quotes on this issue. Reasoning on the logical effects of the doctrine as stated (applying logikos) is the only way to arrive at the teaching, but the teaching is pervasively present. Respectfully, Evident 20:12, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
Indeed. The problem is, uberpenguin also saw fit to slap a POV tag on the page because of this, so it's actually affecting the article. Any ideas on what to do, given that uberpenguin doesn't seem likely to change his mind any time soon? A person having doubts or being confused or whatnot is fine, but dragging that into an encyclopedia article, because you don't personally agree with what it says despite the fact that it has been abundantly proven on the Talk page, isn't fine.Tommstein 05:04, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
Tommstein: uberpenguin has agreed to research the teachings on the "man with the secretary's inkhorn." In those teachings, there are only two groups; Those who receive the mark and those who do not. There is only one determinant of whether someone receives the mark; Those who actively side with Jehovah and those who do not (whether through ignorance or some other reason). There is specific mention that age is no qualifier on outcome (which answers the question about babies and children whose parents do not side with Jehovah). Everyone who receives the mark lives and everyone who does not dies. It is a simple formula that I am certain uberpenguin can readily grasp. Give him time to study it out. It is a shame that the reluctance to accept plain JW teaching on this is proving damaging to the article itself. Maybe it is almost over, though. Respectfully, Evident 13:51, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
I'm somewhat disappointed that the general feeling here seems to be that a direct letter from the WBTS regarding their teachings wouldn't be sufficient to end this discussion (assuming, of course, that it wasn't too vague to be conclusive). I am reading and researching, but things are very busy for me, and I doubt that I'll be able to do much editing on WP for a while (at least until this school semester ends). For this and other reasons, I'm withdrawing from this argument in a neutral position. I haven't yet had the time to research things to my own satisfaction, but I don't wish to annoy other editors by continually raising an objection that I haven't had time to adequately research myself. Feel free to remove the NPOV tag because I do not currently have the time to devote all of my spare time to research for this website, and I'm the only one arguing the counter-point. As a side note, I would like to say that I am quite displeased that while all the other editors involved here have been quite civil and cordial about things, Central has not been able to restrain himself one bit in lashing out flames of criticism and patronizing insults towards any person or organization involved that he disagrees with. Yes, Central, I very well realize that you loathe just about everything that the WBTS and JWs in general stand for, but you might at least consider trying to act like a civil human being whenever someone disagrees with you. I'm really not looking for any response you may offer because I seriously doubt there will be a thread of concern or decency in it; of course I cannot stop you from saying whatever you will and you have every right to express it if you so desire. End rant...
For the rest of you, thanks for the patience and civility, and I hope to see you later when I'm not so busy with the more mundane concerns of life! -- uberpenguin 00:34, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
Well uberpenguin you have just won a trophy for flamer of the year. I find it amusing in how you have dragged me into discussions with your constant patronising air and jibes, and then expect me to not reply as if it's the dignified thing to do, to allow you to sully me in yet more ad hominem attacks, you really take the biscuit. Can I remind you that you were the one to drag me into this particular issue by insulting me with snide comments when you were losing the argument with Tommstein, and then accusing me of posting under someone else's name, that of Tommstein who is formerly poster 66.158.232.37. You have still failed to apologise to Tommstein or me, but I suppose that is to be expected. Now you do it again, thanking others and deliberately flaming at me, trying your best to insult and provoke me to get a reaction so you can disappear as a martyr to your cause, and I'm sure comfort yourself that you are being "persecuted" so you must have "the Truth©". I will point out some incorrect statements you have just made (specifically made by you to look like a victim).
As for criticising organizations, you claim, "he does not agree with", is not the issue. If I criticise it's about the accuracy of the information presented, not the fact that the doctrines are false. Do Jehovah's Witnesses' and their organization not have "flames of criticism" for all religions that they do not approve? Just look up the page, and see their extreme lustful delight in the destruction of others they do not agree with: "they will begin killing one another. . . great panic. . . every man's sword shall be against his brother. . . killed by their neighbors. . . with a terrible destruction. A flesh-eating plague will destroy many. Says Jehovah: Their flesh shall rot wile they are still on their feet, their eyes shall rot in their sockets, and their tongues shall rot in their mouths. . . .Eaten up will be the tongues of those who scoffed and laughed at the warning of Armageddon! Eaten up will be the eyes of those who refused to see the sign of the time of the end! Eaten up will be the flesh of those who would not learn that the living and true God is named Jehovah! Eaten up while they stand on their feet! . . ." you get the picture. If my criticisms are so offensive, you better take a look at your own religion and its grossly vicious judgments towards others "it does not agree with".
You also made a carefully worded straw man claim: "Yes, Central, I very well realize that you loathe just about everything that the WBTS and JWs in general stand for." I do not "loath" JWs, in fact I view them as victims, and have some friends who are JWs. What do you mean specifically by "what they stand for"? What I do despise is lying control over the minds of others, deceit, manipulation, unfounded claims of divine guidance, and false representation of facts, and I have ample proof that is a culpable charge on the organizational leaders of the Watch Tower Society. Your horror and violent reaction to any valid criticism of them is telling indeed, and just goes to prove how much you are in the grip of men's control, and not free at all. Yes, that is your choice, but please don't throw your toys out of your cot every time information is posted that you world rather have buried and dead. You really need to ask yourself why you have such an all encompassing urge to defend leaders who have lied, deceived, and manipulated the rank and file members, and misrepresented God and the Bible, and something that you would heavily criticize and condemn when you see it in other religions! You are under other's control far more than you are willing to realise, with your recent refusal to accept the printed reality of your own group's doctrine even when the evidence is overwhelming—that uberpenguin—is a deeply worrying sign of a mind under the control of others.
I will leave you in peace with five small quotes from your organization that I happen to agree with, please feel free to look them up and check them:
"God, who is himself "the God of truth" and who hates lies, will not look with favor on persons who cling to organizations that teach falsehood. (Psalm 31:5; Proverbs 6:16-19; Revelation 21:8) And, really, would you want to be even associated with a religion that had not been honest with you?"—Is This Life All There Is? 1974 p.46
"Since we do not want our worship to be in vain, it is important for each one of us to examine his religion. We need to examine, not only what we personally believe, but also what is taught by any religious organization with which we may be associated. Are its teachings in full harmony with God's Word, or are they based on the traditions of men? If we are lovers of the truth, there is nothing to fear from such an examination. It should be the sincere desire of every one of us to learn what God's will is for us, and then to do it.-John 8:32."—The Truth That Leads to Eternal Life 1968 p.13
"How many are aware that adhering to false religion can mean their eternal destruction?… Are true Christians going to stand by quietly and say nothing about such gross misrepresentations? Hardly!"— Watchtower 15 April 1970 p.246
"Therefore, how will you respond when pointed statements are made about false religious teachings and corrupt practices? Will you immediately condemn the person or organization making the exposé? Do you feel it is all right to teach lies and misrepresent God's Word, but wrong to expose the error? Contrary to what some may think, it is not unkind and unloving to lay bare falsehood and corruption."—Watchtower 1 March 1966 p.132
"When persons are in great danger from a source that they do not suspect or are being misled by those they consider their friends, is it an unkindness to warn them? They may prefer not to believe the warning. They may even resent it. But does that free one from the moral responsibility to give that warning? If you are among those seeking to be faithful to God, the issues these questions raise are vital for you today."—Watchtower 15 January 1974 p.35
Kind regards. Central 04:55, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Children and babies also killed at Armageddon

Some more information regarding a recent post about whether young children and babies will be spared or destroyed at Armageddon according to Jehovah's witness' teachings. The second quote is a bit long, but still relevant, the source is at the end of the quote, as it is with all the others.

Will children who have not reached the age of accountability and who die at Armageddon have a resurrection?-Ohio reader. We cannot be dogmatic about this matter, as God is the judge. However, if Jehovah God expresses an adverse judgment against certain individuals, and does this through his King Christ Jesus at Armageddon, there must be some sort of finality to God's decision. If so, those destroyed by the judgment of God in the battle of Armageddon are really destroyed. Ezekiel chapter 9 appears to refer to Armageddon, and verse 6 states, "Slay utterly old and young, both maids, and little children, and women: but come not near any man upon whom is the mark." Those unmarked by a favorable reception of God's warning receive no mercy from him. This is no injustice on God's part. If it were a case of absolute justice he would spare no one, as everyone, young or old, is an imperfect sinner. It is only through the exercise of his love and mercy that anyone is preserved through Armageddon or is resurrected.
Children are affected by the course of their parents, and parents are warned that their iniquity is visited on their offspring unto the third and fourth generation. (Ex. 20:5, 6) Parents are commanded to instruct their children in God's way, and if in these last days parents refuse to heed the divine instruction and warning they bring destruction upon themselves and their small children at Armageddon. (Deut. 6:6, 7; Eph. 6:4) According to justice God can leave such children dead, for, as Ezekiel showed, all die in their iniquity. (Ezek. 3:17-19; 33:1-6) Parents should remember that their wrong course unfavorably affects their children and may bring their offspring to destruction at Armageddon, just as a right course on the part of parents may put their small children in the way of preservation during Armageddon and opportunity for eternal life in the new world to follow. Watchtower 15 November 1950 p.463 Questions from Readers
Adam's offspring did not come under eternal destruction because of his fall. Why should young children suffer eternal destruction at Armageddon because of having wicked parents?-E. N., Minnesota.
. . .However, long before this many persons will have had their time of judgment, as the Scriptures show that God has brought certain judgment periods upon human society at certain times, during which he held them accountable for their course of action. That they might be really accountable for themselves and for their young children dependent upon them, he caused testimony to be given that they might know the issue and make their decision, by which they would determine their destiny, independent of any inherited condemnation from Adam. He warned parents not only of the consequences to themselves but also of those to their unresponsible offspring.
One of such judgment periods was the flood of Noah's day, prior to which Noah preached righteousness for some forty or fifty years. (Heb. 11:7; 2 Pet. 2:5) Another was the fiery end of Sodom and Gomorrah, which cities saw warning miracles by angels and heard witnessing by Lot before the rain of fire fell. (Gen. 19:11-14, 24) In Jesus' day it was a time of judgment and he warned certain Jewish cities of a fate like that upon Sodom and Gomorrah, and judged certain scribes and Pharisees fit for the eternal destruction of Gehenna.-Matt. 11:20-24; 23:33, NW. Our present day is also a time of judgment, and it is this that the objectors to the answer in the November 15 Watchtower apparently fail to fully appreciate. For seventy-one years The Watchtower has been publishing the warning of God's Word, and since 1919 Jehovah's witnesses have been active as never before in giving world-wide witness, in this time of judgment when the enthroned King is separating the nations as a shepherd divides the sheep from the goats. Abuse and persecution come upon them from both adults and children under the influence of their elders. So it is because we now live in a period of judgment that we say all persons are on trial. And because children are present they too come in for judgment, and their case is not parallel to that of Adam and Eve's offspring, who were not present in Eden at the time of that pair's judgment trial.
Can we Scripturally say that those slain by Jehovah at the climax of such judgment periods as at the Flood and at Sodom and Gomorrah and at Armageddon go into eternal destruction?-I. F., Washington
Please open your Bible and read Luke 17:24-37. It speaks of "that day when the Son of man is to be revealed" (NW), and the surrounding verses show that to be in the time of the end, climaxed by Armageddon. It states that at Armageddon it will be "just as it occurred in the days of Noah" when "the flood arrived and destroyed them all", and it will be "just as it occurred in the days of Lot" when he fled Sodom and "it rained fire and sulphur from heaven and destroyed them all". Since these are parallel cases, if it can be shown that the destroyed in any one case will have no "resurrection of judgment" it follows that those in the other two cases are likewise doomed. (John 5:28, 29, NW) The parable of the sheep and goats, now in course of fulfillment, shows that at Armageddon the goats "depart into everlasting cutting-off", thereby indicating the fate of those destroyed in all three cases.-Matt. 25:31-46, NW. . . . These Jewish cities had heard the warning and had seen powerful works; they had had fair judgment trial and by their decision showed they were worthy of eternal destruction.-Matt. 10:5-15; Luke 10:8-12, NW. So today this time of judgment of the nations is not a mere dress rehearsal for a further and decisive second judgment to come, thereby making the destruction of individuals at Armageddon not count for eternity. If it were a matter of these people dying and coming back in a general resurrection for a second opportunity, then their blood on the head of the watchman class would not be so serious, nor would Jehovah view the warning work so vital as to make the stones cry out the alarm if we remained silent.-Ezek. 33:7-9; Luke 19:40.
. . .In harmony with the parable of the sheep and goats, Ezekiel chapter 9 shows but two classes, those marked for preservation and the unmarked ones appointed to destruction. And in this latter class note that little children were included, to be slain without pity. This is a prophetic picture of the destruction at Armageddon. At a time of judgment Jesus said: "If the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch." That means not only clergy and laity but also parent and child. Watchtower 1 May 1951 pp. 286-288
At the Flood all those people outside Noah's ark, namely, the men, the women, the children and babies, the Nephilim or the hybrid offspring from the marriage of disobedient angels and human daughters of men, all such then living were suddenly executed by God's direct act and were thus destroyed forever. So it will be with all persons on earth who are not in harmony with God's kingdom at the fast-approaching battle of Armageddon. Watchtower 15 March 1965 pp. 165-166 Who Will Be Resurrected-Why?
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. (Revelation 7:9-17; 2 Corinthians 4:4) They will make up the "flesh" that Jesus Christ said would be saved through the worst tribulation of all human history. Watchtower 1 Sept 1989 p. 19 Remaining Organized for Survival Into the Millennium.
You can see the answer from these few quotes, there are many, many more out there saying the same thing, children/babies will be judged by the actions, or inaction of their parents/guardians, i.e., if they do not warm to Jehovah's Witnesses and become one, they are all going to die eternally at Armageddon.Central 12:56, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
It is totally true that JWs teach that children younger than the age of accountability are judged the same as their parents. However, you are adding quite a bit of your own spin by implying that JWs teach "all children and babies will die eternally at Armageddon." This is based on the presumption above that all non-JWs will in fact (that is, there is no question) be destroyed at Armageddon, which is again, not what JWs teach or believe. I have not backed off that earlier argument because I've conceded to your totally wrong interpretation of JW beliefs, but because I'm extremely busy with other affairs right now and haven't had the time to waste arguing a futile argument with someone who has a strong bias opposite to my own.
I'm not going to start arguing with you on this point either, just point this situation out for others to read. We have irreconcilable points of view on this matter that no matter of tit-for-tat accusation of the other's misinterpretation will solve. Therefore I will add a NPOV label to this article because it currently expresses a point of view that is YOURS and not that of the majority of practicing JWs. As far as articles about religion go, Wikipedia is supposed to reflect the actual views of practitioners, not third parties' interpretation of quotes from old JW literature (whose teachings have largely been revised or abandoned in later years). The page should have the NPOV tag because you would be very hard pressed to find ANY practicing JW that agrees with the statements you are making on this matter. I will not argue this point endlessly with you. I will only respond as I have time if you can manage to reply in a civil and non-derogatory fashion to me and to JWs. If your reply is laced with sarcasm and personal insults, I will simply ignore whatever you say. Don't take it personally please, but I have no desire to deal with someone that isn't willing to treat others with differing opinions with any respect. -- uberpenguin 17:55, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
uberpenguin: Perhaps it could be worded this way, "Jehovah's Witnesses believe that children who are not yet able to decide for themselves will be either destroyed or spared based on their parent's choices." That is NPOV and easily supported with their literature.--Evident 19:04, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
I've given a long reply, but you posted the small one before I posted, so I will answer that first. The problem with your suggestion is that 1. It is ambiguous which children you are talking about, and 2. It is also ambiguous on what their parents choice is supposed to mean. It would be better either left as it is, or with your wording modified to: ""Jehovah's Witnesses believe that children of non-JWs who are not yet able to decide for themselves, will be either destroyed or spared based on their parent's choices to become a JW or not." Mind you the text I put says the same thing.Central
I like Evident's verbiage just fine, it is much more accurate and I'd have no problems whatsoever with it. The problem I have with Central's is here: "... the children of non-JWs who ..." That distinction is totally unneccessary. Children of JWs who are under the age of accountability are judged according to their parents choices just as all other children are. The phrasing Central suggests makes it seem as if there is a double-standard by making the distinction. Central's phrasing also makes it seem very black and white; either you are a JW and will be saved, or you are not and will be destroyed. I will not dig up the previous long-winded discussion, but I will say that even many of those who identify themselves as JWs and may, by all appearances, be JWs will not be saved at Armageddon, and their children would likely suffer the same fate (per previous discussion.
I like Evident's phrasing because it is correct, but doesn't make it seem like there exists a double standard or that the criteria for being saved or not is so simple and discernable by human beings. The article already makes it very clear that JWs believe that their faith is the only correct one and that only those who practice Christianity in the way JWs interpret it have a hope of being saved at Armageddon (and of course it discusses JW views on the resurrection). It is distracting and totally unneccessary to go out of our way to point out at every turn that yes, JWs believe that the hope of survival of Armageddon is only extended to them. The concept of "not everybody will be saved" is hardly unusual for Christian denominations, and re-stating it in several ways is detracting. -- uberpenguin 00:08, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
Uberpenguin, you said: "Central's phrasing also makes it seem very black and white; either you are a JW and will be saved, or you are not and will be destroyed." That is because that is what the literature states, not me. But I do agree that many JWs will also be destroyed, but that just makes it even more implausible for unbelievers to be shown mercy. Then you say: "It is distracting and totally unnecessary to go out of our way to point out at every turn that yes, JWs believe that the hope of survival of Armageddon is only extended to them." How can it be unnecessary? Is life or death a minor issue? Clarification is extremely important. We are all aware of how much the Watch Tower Society loves ambiguous language, and its multiple interpretations, but here is not place for that double speak, or cult like mind games with interpretations depending on who is reading the text. Clarification of what is taught in the official literature is the most important thing, not carefully inserting indistinct phrases to make the message more palatable for those not in the know. Central 10:09, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
My reply to your main text:
Now let's be all calm and civil and have a look. Thank you for your reply good sir. You appear to be contradicting yourself, first you say: "It is totally true that JWs teach that children younger than the age of accountability are judged the same as their parents." So, X parent's judgement = child's judgement, got that bit. Then you immediately change the subject and say: "However, you are adding quite a bit of your own spin by implying that JWs teach "all children and babies will die eternally at Armageddon." Actually, Uberpenguin, the statement on the main page is:
"Belief that a "Great Crowd" of Jehovah's Witnesses is now living that will survive the coming battle of Armageddon and have the prospect of living forever on an earthly paradise. (Revelation 7:9-17) Belief that all others (non-Jehovah's Witnesses) on Earth will be killed by Jehovah at Armageddon, including small children and babies.
I'm just adding my responses inline, hope you don't mind. First of all thank you for maintaining civility despite our differences in view. You know very well that I do not agree with several things stated in the article, but as I already stated I'm not trying to take up that argument at this time. My issues the matter of children and babies is mostly about bad phrasing, and that was explained in my last paragraph. -- uberpenguin 00:08, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
You just agreed that X parent's judgment = same for children and babies, therefore if the parents die, so do their children, right? This is not my subjective view, it's one plastered all over Jehovah's Witnesses propaganda literature for the past 100+ years. The point you are trying to make is that you think non-Jehovah's Witnesses will also be saved, is it not? I find it interesting that you posit your personal subjective views (yes that means POV), and then project them on to me, as if I'm the one being subjective and not you—rather ironic isn't it? You state: "This is based on the presumption above that all non-JWs will in fact (that is, there is no question) be destroyed at Armageddon, which is again, not what JWs teach or believe." Well according to the Watch Tower Society's official literature this is what they clearly teach! I have posted yet more examples above that make it very explicit that survival at Armageddon is only achievable by being part of "God's organization" in other words, a Jehovah's Witnessed actively associated with the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society, and its claimed deluded cenile old men "faithful and discreet slave". Have you not read any of the direct quotes above? You appear to just see through them, no matter how many there are, and then forget what you've just seen a second later.
No, the point isn't what I think, it never has been. The issue is that JWs have never presumed to made definitive statements as to the fate of non-JWs at Armageddon because they recognize God's authority in the matter. When JWs do not extend a hope of survival of Armageddon to non-JWs (a hope, not an assurance), you assert that it means they condemn all non-JWs to destruction at Armageddon. I know I promised not to bring up the previous issue again, but here we are, invariably discussing this key point. I do not require more quotes, I am very well aware of what JWs have published over the years. The issue is that those writers never meant that the lack of being extended the prospect of survival at Armageddon automatically means destruction. I suggest the following phrasing, which includes JWs belief that it is not humans' place to judge other humans: "JWs hold that only they are extended the hope or expectation of survival at Armageddon, but ultimately Jehovah God alone has the right as judge, and it is not for men to decide or speculate as to any person's fate." What do you find so incorrect about this phrasing? Also, do not taint your civility with sarcasm, I do not use it to make my points, and I respectfully request that you refrain from using it as well. -- uberpenguin 00:08, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
You state: "The issue is that JWs have never presumed to made definitive statements as to the fate of non-JWs at Armageddon because they recognize God's authority in the matter." That is carefully worded Straw man Uberpenguin, because they may not judge as individuals, but they do judge and make statements claming that they are merely revealing "God's plan", not mans. They make it very clear they believe they are the "mouthpiece of God", well the Governing Body does at any rate, and that the message is clear to all. "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. (Revelation 7:9-17; 2 Corinthians 4:4) They will make up the "flesh" that Jesus Christ said would be saved through the worst tribulation of all human history. Watchtower 1 Sept 1989 p. 19. That message is reiterated over, and over, and over again in their literature, please learn to accept reality, regardless of its impact on new converts.Central 10:09, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
You continue with a classic false statement: "Therefore I will add a NPOV label to this article because it currently expresses a point of view that is YOURS and not that of the majority of practicing JWs. As far as articles about religion go, Wikipedia is supposed to reflect the actual views of practitioners." You have failed to see the irony again! NPOV is just that, a neutral, factual point of view, based on (as far as possible) sterile facts. You are basing it on your personal views, not those of the Watch Tower Society's literature from "Jehovah's Spirit directed Channel". Wikipedia is not here to "reflect the actual views of practitioners", that is POV! Wikipedia is here to present the official facts as they are taught, not personal views at all. The facts come from Jehovah's Witnesses Governing Body and its writing departments (with their approval), this is where all JWs beliefs come from, not from the personal POV of individual members who may have a zillion differing biases on what they are taught. The only thing that should be on Wikipedia are the facts and literature as they come from the geriatric old fools “channel of God", i.e., the "Official organization of Jehovah's Witnesses", not from individual subjective views and interpretations of rank and file members. I appreciate you are trying to give the public a candy sweet image of the JWs, and make it more palatable, as they do on the doors. I've even heard the statement made by some Witnesses of "Slowly, slowly catch the monkey" in their attitude to getting new converts, and I know this means only presenting the soft, fluffy, nicey, nicey stuff to draw people in. The hardcore massacres taught by the Watch Tower are gradually introduced once the victim 'Bible student' is less likely to run out the door.
The views of practitioners are what the organization as a whole believes, and this article should be about JW beliefs, not a fight over interpretation of WBTS literature. I readily admit that it is difficult to come to any position that could be called "NPOV" in a religious article, and in all likelihood it is an unattainable pipe dream. Religion is, in fact, a POV, no matter how you analyze it. Writing is subject to interpretation, both mine and yours, and if you reject my interpretation on the grounds of POV, then why is yours automatically more valid (and I of course acknowledge that "mine" and "yours" both refer to POVs held by larger groups of people). Your own bias is evident and totally ignoring it while accusing me of the POV that I readily admit to is just as big a fallacy as you consistantly accuse JWs of. Again, the sarcasm is not appreciated. I neither know nor care why you have such great issues with JWs, but keep it out of your discussions. We are adults, we can do without name calling or your own soapboxing. -- uberpenguin 00:08, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
You state: "Your own bias is evident and totally ignoring it while accusing me of the POV that I readily admit to is just as big a fallacy as you consistently accuse JWs of." The problem with that statement of yours is that I back up my points with multiple factual and unaltered quotes direct from the source. You have failed to give any quotes to back up your claims, and that demonstrates a lot. There are pages of quotes here backing up what I have stated, where are all the new quotes revoking the old ones as you claim? If you claim the Watch Tower has changed its doctrines yet again, then please give some clear and explicit examples, because I have not seen any, and do not know of any. They are most welcome in resolving any doubts you are having about the "channel of God". Central 10:09, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
All I have done is post what is officially taught, with full back up in direct literature quotes to prove I'm not making this stuff up, or changing it to any personal view. If you choose to ignore the literature that has suppose to have come from "God feeding His people through His one true chosen channel" then that is your business. But please don't come here trying to censor the actual official doctrines, and water them down to a more liberal personal PR point of view, as that is most definitely not the purpose of Wikipedia. You appear to want POV views instead of official Watch Tower Society's Stalinist law views, which is very strange seeing as you're suppose to believe that the Watch Tower Society is "God's chosen Spirit guided channel to mankind", are you now getting a free mind a little proud, arrogant, and showing apostate leanings?:-) Seriously though, if you claim as you state here: "whose teachings have largely been revised or abandoned in later years." Can you give us some clear, explicit examples of the "facts" you claim that many non-JWs will also be saved at Armageddon, along with their kiddies?
Not only is the comparison of a person or group's practices with totalitarian regimes a scathing direct insult, in violation of Wikipedia rules, and about the quickest way you can undermine your points, but I have specifically asked you not to bring out the personal insults. Don't do it again. -- uberpenguin 00:08, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
Your reaction to a comment about your leaders is very revealing, and smacks of mind control. I sincerely do see parallels between communist mind control and propaganda and some of the methods utilised by the Watch Tower Society. What is worrying is your inflammatory reaction, especially claming "personal insults" when I criticise your leaders, not you! Are these old men gods? Your reaction is one I would expect in a cult, or a totalitarian dictatorship. Much like one would see in North Korea if someone were to criticize the leaders "gods". What next, I will be dragged away and shot in true Orwellian fashion? Thank God, I live in a Free Speech Democracy! And silly me thought Jesus was supposed to be your leader, King, and channel to God. Try exercising your free speech to criticise your Watch Tower leader when you are in the Kingdom Hall, and see if the reaction is more like Stalinist Russia/North Korea than any form of Christian freedom. Central 10:09, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
As you are aware (even if you bury the reality in your subconscious mind) the Watch Tower has written many, many articles demonstrating that they believe they are the only true path to salvation, and that God will not save those who do not choose the Watch Tower Society and JWs, as their protection, and "marking" for survival. Just re-read the article here, scroll the page up a bit to where it starts: "Soul-chilling terror will spread through the masses of people so that they will lose control of themselves; they will begin killing one another. "On that day a great panic from the LORD [Jehovah] shall fall on them, so that each will lay hold on the hand of his fellow, and the hand of the one will be raised against. . ." and read it all, it's from Paradise Lost to Paradise Regained (book) 1958 pp.208-209, with the full quotes further up the page in the 'Who dies at Armageddon section 6.0)
If you have plenty of quotes to prove that the Watch Tower Society has done a U-turn, as you stated, and now offers salvation to many non-JWs, not via Jehovah's Witnesses, or association with their organization, then that is great, and I'm sure we all here will be interested to see them. There may be many JW who think that the Watch Tower is too harsh, judgmental and like the Pharisees, and these individuals, like you, have chosen to be more liberal, but those breakaway views are still not representative of the Watch Tower's official doctrines. The same can be said about the blood issue, there is the group AJWRB (Associated Jehovah's Witnesses for Reform on Blood) that do not agree with the Watch Tower's stance on blood transfusions, maybe you will fit better into one of these groups. I'm sure all here would welcome a small heading on JWs who are growing in number that disagree with the doctrines and interpretations of the Watch Tower Society, but that still does not mean censoring the official written doctrines of the Watch Tower, in this case about who dies at Armageddon. Kind regards Central 20:54, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
I shall reiterate once more for posterity (or more likely, to beat the horse into glue). JWs do teach that their practices and interpretation of the Bible are the only correct ones. This is factual and, if I may interject some POV, not totally unusual for Christian denominations. The WBTS does not "offer salvation," as you say, to any groups other than JWs, but they certainly do not decidedly deny it for all non-JW humankind and they never have. It would be presumptuous and arrogant to, if you'll excuse the poor expression, "damn the world to Hell," when JWs believe that only God has the right to make these decisions. I'm not sure why you've gone into an aside about the various small groups that seek JW reform (which are viewed by the WBTS and practicing JWs as a whole as apostate, as you are well aware of), but this is not about what I believe, so if you would kindly not try to challenge my own beliefs and keep this just to the discussion at hand, it would be appreciated. Thanks once more for keeping this mostly civil, and I once again request that you restrain yourself from using the sarcasm. -- uberpenguin 00:08, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

The reason why I made the possible exception for children at Armageddon the other day is the following quote:

Reasoning from the Scriptures, pp. 47-8:
"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. (Num. 16: 27, 32; Ezek. 9:6) God does not want anyone to be destroyed, so he is having a warning sounded now to benefit both parents and children. Would it not be wise for parents to pursue a course that would result in their children being looked on with favor by God both now and at Armageddon?"

The first sentence seems to indicate that they don't claim to know for sure what happens to children at Armageddon Although they then do a fine job of undermining their own statement and trying to 'say it without saying it,' especially in the last sentence, and come ridiculously close to implying that the children of those destroyed at Armageddon also go with them. But as it is, the answer is ambiguous enough, in my opinion, for it to be said that 'possibly' the children of those destroyed will survive. That September 1, 1989 Watchtower (published after the Reasoning book) would shut the door on the children of those destroyed at Armageddon if taken literally, but it would also shut the door on the children of Jehovah's Witnesses (does anyone actually consider a newborn a Jehovah's Witness, especially considering their views on infant baptism?), and I'm pretty sure no one is going to claim that Jehovah's Witnesses believe that their own children will die at Armageddon. So that Watchtower leaves enough wiggle room for one to reasonably assume that it is only talking about those of a sufficient age/maturity level/whatever. All the other references were from before the Reasoning book, so one should probably consider the Reasoning book's statement on the matter to be what they currently actually believe (not that that can't change back and forth on a whim, but that's for another day).

As to the stuff about the old discussion on who lives and who dies at Armageddon, there's not really anything else that can be said until uberpenguin supplies a considerably more substantive reply to what's wrong with all 30 or so quotes than 'I say we don't believe that, period, I'm not responding to your research.'Tommstein 08:07, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

I might have missed some points in this discussion as it is too much reading for me. Did someone already wrote, which age a children must have to survive? Am i not a children of my parents? So if we can't fix a number the whole theme is just to confuse the reader.--Mini 09:30, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Mini: According to the teaching on the "man with the secretary's inkhorn," living or dying at Armageddon is determined by whether a person has decided to actively side with Jehovah. If a child makes that decision, they will be spared. If a child fails to do so and Jehovah determines they were mature enough to be able to do so, they will not be spared. If a child is not mature enough to decide (in Jehovah's estimation) they are marked for salvation, or left unmarked for death, based on their parent's decision of whether to actively side with Jehovah. Those who are ignorant cannot actively side with Jehovah. It isn't dependent on an age, so setting a year for accountability would not apply to JWs like it does for some religions. Respectfully, Evident 14:04, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
I have not followed this discussion sice I thought sucha matter is already solved. The sentence in the article "Belief that all others (non-Jehovah's Witnesses) on Earth will be killed by Jehovah at Armageddon, including small children and babies" is wrong. If uberpenguin currently does not have time to come up with evidence, I am going to supply one as soon as I come home tonight. Just to say what is coming -- little children: As was quoted from the Reasoning book the official response is "The Bible does not directly answer that question, and we are not the judges." therefore the wording "except possibly small children" is very correct. First, there was a study article in the Watchtower dealing with the mixed company coming out of Egypt that was dealing with who is going to survive. Also, since Jesus showed that not everybody will hear the good news and have the possibility to react to it (as JW apply it to themselves), now is Jehovah going to destroy them? No, for he has the ability to see what is in their hearts. Sorry for mentioning it all beforehand but I could not resist. As soon as I supply sources to these, I am going to rephrase the sentence and any further reverts should be done only if someone supplies more current evidence to the contrary. Soukie 07:38, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
I'm with you on the children part, being the one that made the possible exception for them in the article and quoted the Reasoning book above and all. Although I'm not really sure where others stand on that, since no one replied to my quote. But as to just plain up and changing the part about Jehovah destroying all others who aren't Jehovah's Witnesses (you know, the thing we just spent like 53 pages discussing), I hope you were kidding.Tommstein 08:13, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
I am sure that if we keep to the facts, we can resolve this in a quick and NPOV manner. I suggest that if I am going to present a short quote from the current official article directly dealing with this issue, then surely there is an opportunity to refute it in a similar manner (a later quotation directly addressing this issue). And the fact that some users are cluttering this page cannot be used to prevent a healthy "attack" on what I and others consider a misleading claim as to what JW claim and believe. I am sure your last remark was in good intent, and I do understand the inherent difficulties and dangers in starting another lengthy discussion. Please give me a chance and be assured that I am prepared to leave the resolution of this issue to people that are rightly considered more impartial than I am. Soukie 09:15, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
Well sure, if you can provide a quote more recent than the above ones, stating your point explicitly, you win. But it would have to be pretty clear as to what they meant, not some wishy-washy thing which could be interpreted in different ways. If you have the right quote(s), though, that's all anyone can ask for. Definitely, post away whatever you can find. A single recent, explicit quote could wipe out all the ones I and others have provided above (which would have to be chalked up to "old light" or whatever). As to those "more impartial" people you speak of, who are they?Tommstein 09:25, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
Soukie: Here are some references to get you started. I hope you have the CD so I don't have to post the full content of these in the talk page.
w99 10/1 pp. 7-8 “For Everything There Is an Appointed Time” (paragraphs 11, 12)
w02 10/15 pp. 14-15 Jehovah Cares for You (paragraphs 7-9)
This next one needs quoting:
w02 3/1 p. 31 How Can You Survive the End of This World?
Peter was not here speaking of a destruction of the literal heavens and earth. The “heavens” and “earth” to which Peter referred in this context are symbolic of present corrupt human governments and of ungodly human society. “The day of Jehovah” will not destroy earth itself but will “annihilate the land’s sinners out of it.” (Isaiah 13:9) For those who are “sighing and groaning over all the detestable things” that are being done in today’s wicked human society, the day of Jehovah will therefore be a day of salvation.—Ezekiel 9:4.
How, then, can anyone be saved in “the great and fear-inspiring day of Jehovah”? “The word of Jehovah” revealed to one of his prophets provides the answer to that question: “It must occur that everyone who calls on the name of Jehovah will get away safe.” (Joel 1:1; 2:31, 32) Jehovah’s Witnesses will be happy to help you learn what it means to call on the name of Jehovah.
Well, what does it mean to "call on the name of Jehovah?"
w92 5/1 p. 15 Who Will Escape the “Time of Distress”?
7 How do these survivors call on the name of Jehovah? James 4:8 gives us an indication, stating: “Draw close to God, and he will draw close to you. Cleanse your hands, you sinners, and purify your hearts, you indecisive ones.” As with the anointed remnant who led the way, those who hope to be of the great crowd of Armageddon survivors must act decisively. If you hope to survive, you must drink deeply from Jehovah’s purifying Word and apply his righteous standards in your life. You must be decisive in dedicating your life to Jehovah, symbolizing this by water baptism. Your calling on Jehovah in faith also includes witnessing for him. Thus, at Romans chapter 10, verses 9 and 10, Paul writes: “If you publicly declare that ‘word in your own mouth,’ that Jesus is Lord, and exercise faith in your heart that God raised him up from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one exercises faith for righteousness, but with the mouth one makes public declaration for salvation.” Then, in verse 13, the apostle quotes Joel’s prophecy, emphasizing that “everyone who calls on the name of Jehovah will be saved.”
I hope that helps clarify it for you. As of 2002 there is active siding with Jehovah required. The teachings on the "man with the secretary's inkhorn" have not been updated or changed. The effects of the teaching are readily apparent, whether you like the reality of not. Reasoning From the Scripture softshoes around a solid doctrine that would prevent people from studying with JWs, and that is not surprising in the least. In most religions, there is Church doctrine and there is recruitment propaganda. Sometimes the two disagree. Respectfully, Evident 14:29, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Response to request for Jehovah Witness stories from non-Witness

I married into a family with several practicing Jehovah Witnesses...it ended up being my worst nightmare and cost me the most precious part of my life. My in-laws seemed to welcome me with open loving arms. The only family dissention appeared to be over the ones who were practicing Jehovah's Witnesses. It made for strained holidays and building resentments. I loved the entire family...especially my sister-in-law...who was a witness. A life-long witness she had been sexually abused by her father who was legally punished and today is welcomed into the Kingdom Hall sanctuary. That explains her obsession to care for children. She has run unlicensed day care out of her home for many many years. While in her care an infant died. The death was ruled a result of SIDS. I have some doubt but absolutely no proof.Lynn is not just a child loving care-giver she is obsessed with the need to be surrounded and CONTROL every infant and child she can. It took me a long time to identify that...she appears to everybody to be a very educated and dedicated care-giver who is great with children. When I announced my pregnancy it felt like an incredible blessing to have her around. My unborn child was making miracles happen left and right, but the best one of all was the family joining together in celebration. The entire family was in attendance for the holidays ...the witnesses pretended it was not a holiday and the gift exchange was referred to as an ordinary day that we bought and gave tons of gifts for no reason. Whatever...it was a long overdue family togetherness. Lynn took control of my whole pregnancy...from every baby need,right down to my maternity clothes. It felt a little strange and somtimes oppressive, but I was certain she meant well and I felt slightly guilty getting pregnant before her...she had been trying for years...All she wanted was her own baby and mine was unplanned but most welcome. My marriage was a different story...based on a sham no one knew, I was certain I got the only dysfunctional member in the whole family. Progressing steadily downhill it became a marrige of sexual, physical, mental, abuse addiction and torture. After my daughter was born the most precious part of my life, I had to run a business a house and care for my daughter pretty much single-handedly. I began self-medicating to keep up the impossible pace and that was the one choice I will regret all of my life. I turned to Lynn for advice with the spousal abuse and my fears. One beating required a few surgeries and of course Lynn was right there insisting upon caring for Stephanie which she would later refer to as the frequent drop offs of my child. My daughter and I were inseperable...she was why I breathed, and she was quite attached to me as well. For awhile, it made the spousal abuse less painful for me. But as all the abuses escalated I began to fear my daughter's safety and well-being. I neede my daughter more than anything in this world but the love I had for her overuled selfishly keeping her in danger and in the most painful decision of my life I knew the right choice was taking her to Lynn's where she could live live temporarily while getting the help needed to again be the best parent I could be for Stephanie. When I kissed her good-bye I thought I would die but was reminded this is just temporary. That was 11 years ago...They never gave her back to me. They resorted to the lowest tactics of lying cheating and hiding to everyone involved. She told my daughter early on to call her mommy and they told school, medical and church officials no differently. The lies and misrepresentations to the judge were ireprehensible and they intentionally disregarded my court-ordered visitation keeping us apart both from phone and physical visits. Their money was an endless source that I could not keep up with in court battles. she was clever & went to great lengths to make it look like she supported visitation to all the outside world, and even greater lenghts to make me look irresponsible and undependable. If this woman really cared for my daughter she would encourage our reuniting and a healthy mother-daughter relationship. She does the opposite. Ironically my daughter has been forced into a reigion she was not born into nor does she enjoy. Whenever my daughter shows any signs of interest in me either horrible false allegations become tossed at me or Stephanie home life becomes even more rigid and punishing than normal...a behavioral reinforcement to keep away from me. Although Stephanie is being raised with all the finest that money can buy, and has had opportunities many children never do,THE FACTS ARE SIMPLE.There is no greater cruelty,torture, punishment , pain, theft or deceipt than what these Jehovah's Witnesses have done to my daughter and to me...You make the call God-like people or Sinners worse than Hell?

That's a terrible story, but it neither belongs here nor is adequate reason to typecast an entire organization of people. There are bad eggs in every religious organization, JWs included. If you want to use your experiences as reason to despise JWs, that is your prerogative, but frankly it has no relevance whatsoever to this article or this encyclopedia. -- uberpenguin 15:10, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
Hummm. . . I wonder why some Jehovah's Witnesses have the reputation of being merciless bastards? One only has to look at uberpenguin's response to someone's pain and suffering to see why. Posted Central, 29 September 2005.


I apologize if this has been told in the wrong forum. I was responding to a request seen elsewhere for stories submitted by non-witnesses, that asked for the articles to be submitted here. This is all new to me...thought I was doing what was asked of me where I was asked to do it. I take exception to the typecast comment as I did not do that I simply told my story about my experience. I think that is my perogative. For the record, not once did I say anything about despising all JW's...nor did I say that about the people who did me so wrong. I told a truthful story that leaves the reader to draw their own conclusions. I believe what I wrote about was despising the behavior not the people.

To the lady above, I would not expect to see any help and sympathy here from Jehovah's Witnesses, as they view non-Witnesses as 'Bird-seed' for the crows at Armageddon. You should not apologize for posting here, you have had a terrible experience and need some help in coming to terms with it, and all the pain involved. Can I suggest a good forum to start with, I can guarantee you will get some help there and also hear many other stories that are similar and some a lot worse in peoples' life experiences with Jehovah's Witnesses. If you go there and register, you will find a lot of help, which will hopefully lead to resolution and some healing, the forum is here: http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/default.ashx If you register and post under 'Personal Experiences' I am sure you will get a helpful response that will help build you up. Kind regards, Central. Posted 29 September 2005


Allright, then I misinterpreted your last two sentences. In any case, this doesn't belong here. WP isn't a repository for peoples' stories and experiences. -- uberpenguin 16:03, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is an archived section of Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section at Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../j/e/h/Talk%7EJehovah%27s_Witnesses_archive_16_1e64.html"