Dungbeetle:
Thank you for your enthusiastic welcome!Bang: The spiritual gems are Biblical observations/cross-references over the years that have been printed in different publications. Some might say that these same gems could have been (even have been) unearthed by others before the organisation did. I don't think it would be unfair to say though that some of the organisation's 'finds' were a result of reading non-JW literature. I don't make the mistake of casting aside what I feel confident is true based on logical argumentation just because I heard it first from the society. Being an avid reader (of non-fiction) I have learned that valuable information can come from very unexpected quarters - that's why I believe it to be important to be open-minded. I've also found that valuable information is often available only to those who treasure the freedom to think for oneself. Despite what the society says, independant thinking is a must for those seeking truth. History itself bears out that any great change for the better occurred when people decided to question the status quo.
You might think that I believe in a 'restoration' from within the society, but I think it more likely that a 'restoration' will be made outside of it, for a 'clean break' would be for many, the only way forward to starting a fresh spiritual life, being led (as it should be) individually by the "Good Shepherd" - now that is where real faith comes in. Spiritual maturity means not having to let others dictate for us a particular mode of worship, and accepting individual responsibility for our actions. This does not mean that we should become insular and not commune with like-minded people, for this gives much pleasure and encouragement.
It is interesting that Jesus Christ did not promote a new religion (with associated buildings and ritual), but rather a new way of thinking (English 'repentance' = Greek 'metanoia' = 'change of mind').
bjc: Thank you for enlightening me as to the two different viewpoints. I try to keep an open mind, but at the moment I think I tend to agree with the second group, with the exception that I do believe that God is in the picture in some way. Of course, there is an indirect way that God's judgement can be felt: 'Whatever a man is sowing this he shall also reap'. This judgement of course operates like this: All the laws of the Universe, including moral and physical laws, have been put in place by God, so as a natural consequence of breaking those laws, the law-breaker will suffer a 'judgement'. The same can happen within a group of people whether as part of an institution, nation, or even a world community. Eventually the natural inclination for wanting justice will emerge as a large number of people become enlightened as to gross injustice and abuse (for example the Holocaust), and finally 'judgement' is passed (for example, the Nuremburg Trials).
One might argue that if God's "wrath" is only applicable to a religiously-covenanted people then few people need fear Armageddon. It seems that this would contradict other Bible passages which indicate a large-scale destruction of 'the nations'. My view is that the Apostle Paul (in Romans 4:15 & 5:13) is simply showing that whereas 'wrath' would be a consequence of breaking the Mosaic law (accepted as part of the conditions of the covenant) on account of sin - which could not be permantly atoned for - there would be an absence of 'wrath' in the case of Christian freedom due to the permanent atonement of sin. Rather than being a hard and fast 'formula' for determining who generally receives God's 'wrath' and who doesn't, I believe the context of the scriptures shows this is a Mosaic-law/Christian-freedom comparison. Nevertheless, I do accept that a directly-covenanted people (i.e. those that God has in reality made a covenant with) are of special interest to the Almighty and will of course be answerable to him for their behaviour. I don't feel obliged to accept that all prophecies in the Bible have a 'type' and an 'anti-type'. For instance, I think it quite reasonable to accept that, say, a particular prophecy directed towards ancient Israel had just one fulfilment. If we use the 'type' and 'anti-type' procedure with regard to prophecy, then the field is open for a whole range of interpretations, which poses the question: 'Which interpretation is right?' Sometimes it just might be better to accept that some things written to a certain people simply applied to them in their time, and leave it at that.
Having said that, I respect your views, and at the end of the day you and I obviously agree that in His own time and in His own way God will 'sort things out', even employing human beings and political entities in the process of doing so if he wishes. Again, thank you for the welcome!