Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses/surviving armegeddon

message: :Back to the subject, I most certainly do not agree with what you have said above.  It is not dependant on "what article you're looking at" (unless it's pre-1976 of course), it is dependant on WHO is looking at it.  Those who may know of Jehovah's Witnesses may yet survive Armageddon (dependant on the degree of their knowledge, heart condition, we're not their judges anyways, etc..), contrary to your assertion, the quotes you spammed on the JW talk page specifically states "those who REFUSE..".  You also misrepresent what I've already said about "no scriptural hope", the WT '98 article I posted specifically says: "at present we may not know how Jehovah will resolve these issues".  I even gave a link to a forum that is predominately active Jehovah's Witnesses (who don't have anything to do with Wikipedia) who have posted a comprehensive look at this issue (http://www.touchstoneforum.com/cgi-bin/dcforum/dcboard.pl?az=read_count&om=4&forum=DCForumID4) (website seems to be down atm..), as it is a common misunderstanding about Jehovah's Witness doctrine.  Duffer 03:03, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  One, the problem edits currently seem to be pretty much all yours, not every edit that "any Jehovah's Witness makes," as you state in an attempt to garner sympathy and group protection. Two, you made a buttload of changes at the same time you made the "brotherhood" to "society" change , including three in that paragraph. One of the other two wasn't problematic, while you 'saw the light' and gave up edit warring on the other one after someone that wasn't Central or I pointed out to you the same thing that I had already told you multiple times.Tommstein 09:16, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm the ONLY active Jehovah's Witness editor lately, the others simply don't have the time to fight your abuse of accuracy and NPOV, but when they were editing, it was the same thing.  I catagorized each change with detailed information for each.  How is it a lie when verifiably, I edited, I catagorized adequitely and specifically, it was a MINOR edit (the one in question), and you gave me an edit war over it which resulted in you calling me an: "illiterate dumbass."  Where's this lie you're refering to? Duffer 11:42, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Mine: Those who consciously, and actively, oppose the Jehovah's Witnesses' ministry will be eternally killed at Armageddon along with the unrighteous. Those who have no knowledge of Jehovah's Witnesses, and live righteously, may possibly be spared. -Greyfox 22:01, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

text: It is not a definitive.  It is uncertain, as the WTBTS says. Duffer 00:08, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  page 2 

message: Is it possible to take a neutral position?
2 Thess. 1:8: “He brings vengeance upon those who [by choice] do not know God and those who do not obey the good news about our Lord Jesus.”
Matt. 24:37-39: “Just as the days of Noah were . . . they took no note until the flood came and swept them all away, so the presence of the Son of man will be.”
Matt. 12:30: “He that is not on my side is against me, and he that does not gather with me scatters.”
Compare Deuteronomy 30:19, 20.
for added emphasis--Greyfox 03:38, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: These scriptures do not contradict what I have been saying.  Matt. 24:37-39 gives us precedent to believe that it just might happen like that, but the language does not mandate that such will occur again in the same manner, especially when you consider the text of Revelations. Duffer 04:19, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Thanks, Greyfox, for the quotes. The text I proposed does not suggest a "neutral position." It is clear that there are some statements by the Watchtower Society which indicate a possibility some may not be destroyed due to ignorance. Do you think the revised text I proposed would work? Would you have another suggestion to improve it? Thanks! Dtbrown 03:48, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

text: As Greyfox mentions, the problem with these compromises is that they declare as a fact that Jehovah's Witnesses teach that non-Witnesses can/might/whatever live through Armageddon, without mentioning that according to the vast majority of the references provided, they in fact condemn all non-Witnesses to die. I think people are focusing too much on one selected reference here and trying to write everything in accord with it in isolation, without looking at the rest of the mountain of references where they say that the only way to get through Armageddon is to be a Jehovah's Witness.Tommstein 06:25, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Tommstein, I think consensus editing at times requires compromise. The references which Duffer cites cannot be ignored. I think Konrad was right to say that we need to avoid crafting a statement which in harmonizing the two positions might actually be original research. I think all we can do is cite the two positions. I think the position which has the most statements (one needs to be a faithful part of "Jehovah's Organization" to survive Armageddon) should go first. The view which expresses the idea that some might be spared due to ignorance should go second since there are fewer statements in that vein. The Watchtower Society does express both views. As I see it, it is not our job to evaluate or interpret the two sets of views. I think Duffer's interpretation of the "Live Forever" statement (on page 255) is incorrect. From what I can see the context is speaking of surviving the "Great Tribulation" or "Armageddon," and is not referring to a future judgment at the end of the 1,000 years. Because of that and other citations which have been provided, I can't agree with Duffer that the Watchtower Society's interpretation of who will survive Armageddon changed around 1976. I think the "hardline" statements are still valid. However, there are a few statements in recent years which indicate there might be a few exceptions (young children, mentally ill, totally ignorant of the message, etc.) Again, it's not for us here to pass judgment on the Watchtower Society's position on these things. The section we're editing is in a presentation of what JWs beliefs are. Since, that is the context we only need to present what the belief is. Dtbrown 07:46, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Definitely. Who said anything about ignoring Duffer's citations though? As has been explained to him the 80 times he has brought it up, his citations were quickly accepted by the non-Witnesses almost the moment he presented them. The bullet point was quickly changed to take them into account, but that is exactly what Duffer doesn't want, he wants all of his way (one or two citations) and none of everyone else's (literally dozens and dozens of citations). Since mentioning one first and one second doesn't of itself mean much to anyone, however, I think the final version should mention that the vast, vast majority are of the 'not Witness = you're toast' variety, instead of presenting the two like they're used equally (this is basically the same thing you said, except being more explicit about it and saying what we mean by the 'first and second' thing).Tommstein 23:12, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Dtbrown, You said: "The references which Duffer cites cannot be ignored", but they can be explained as he only gives partial quotes. The few "we cannot say" quotes are related to individuals, not groups/classes of people. Yes, the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses admit that in regard to 'Mr Smith of 16 Orchard Road' possibly surviving "we cannot say, we leave it in Jehovah's hands" (note they don't even give any real possibility of survival, they just instead avoid the issue altogether by referring it 'back to God' in a typical public relations attempt to circumvent the uncomfortable subject), and that is just towards individuals, not groups. What they do say is the classes/groups of "sheep or goats" will clearly survive or be destroyed, and they clearly say anyone who hears their message and ignores it is the same class as one opposing it, and they are "all goats", so therefore "going to perish at Armageddon". The only possible hope for anyone not a Jehovah's Witness is to already be dead, or to be one hundred percent ignorant of who Jehovah's Witnesses are, and what they teach. But again, there are very few publications that give them even a slight possibility of survival, and the vast majority say no, no and no, as they are not "in the Ark", and do not have the "mark" of survival including baptism. Please don't be fooled by vague Watch Tower quotes about "we cannot say what will happen to the individual", as they are red herrings. If the individual does not accept the Jehovah's Witnesses' message then he or she automatically goes in the "goat class", receives "no mark of survival" and is "outside the Ark of salvation", and "has no scriptural hope of survival" and so totally doomed. Central 11:58, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I heartily agree. --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 10:23, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  page 5 

message: Unofficial Vote on Change
1)To avoid destruction at Armageddon and to be able to enter the paradise earth one must become a faithful member of "God's visible organization"--Jehovah's Witnesses. (based on Zephaniah 2:3; You Can Live Forever in Paradise on Earth, p. 255) However, it is possible some may be spared destruction at Armageddon due to ignorance of the message preached by Jehovah's Witnesses. (August 15, 1998 Watchtower, p. 20) It should benoted that some of the other books that the Jehovah Witnesses use apear to contradict this but this maybe due to the lack of recent revisions, or replacement of those books.
2)'"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?"'
:Here is my entry: 3)To avoid certain destruction at Armageddon and to be able to enter the post Armageddon "new system" one must become a faithful member of "God's visible organization" i.e., a Jehovah's Witness. (based on Live Forever book, 1989 p. 255; Reasoning book, 1989 p. 47). However, whether it is possible or not for some individuals to be spared destruction at Armageddon due to ignorance of Jehovah's Witnesses' message a few articles make no comment, but "leave it in God's hands". (15 August 1998 Watchtower, p. 20; Reasoning book, 1989 p. 48) The majority of Governing Body's writings say the opposite, that it is "impossible" and there is "no scriptural hope" for non-Jehovah's Witnesses at Armageddon. (Watchtower, 15 Aug 1989 p.19; 15 Sept 1988, pp.14-15; 15 May 1996 p.6; 15 June 1999 p.6) Central 16:29, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Had I to pick one, 3 looks the best, with grammar tweaks and such. Number 1 isn't much of a compromise, it's basically Duffer's story, ever since he was forced to stop pretending that this has never, ever, at any time been taught. Number 2... who changed the topic to kids?Tommstein 17:01, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

text: There aren't sources specifically saying what God will do with left-handed, blond, or fat people, or even Jainists and Scientologists, but declaring that 'such and such are the only people who will survive' allows one to logically conclude that no one else will survive, per the definition of "only."Tommstein 17:10, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Greyfox, I apologize if I came across as rude. I did not mean to be. I've read all those quotes. I don't see one that expressly says the JWs believe that God will destroy people at Armageddon who are ignorant of their preaching work. Is there one that expressly says ignorant people will be destroyed? Dtbrown 04:51, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There are quotes that say that everyone else will be destroyed. I'm not sure why explicit mention of this one possible category is needed, since "ignorant people" is a proper subset of "non-Jehovah's Witnesses" (or "non-Jehovah's Witnesses" is a proper superset of "ignorant people", whichever way you like writing your logic equations and/or set notation).Tommstein 17:15, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  page 7