Neutral?
I'm not sure, but, isn't a christian, one who follows the teaching's of Jesus?
More evil and injustice have been done (and continue to be done) "in the name of Jesus and or God" than one could possibly document. Those who have not taken the time to read what Jesus actually said may—mistakenly—blame Jesus and or God for this evil and injustice. Those who take the time to read the first four books of the New Testament will probably be surprised to discover what Jesus himself actually said.
The four Gospels give us the same life and the same teachings seen from four different viewpoints.
And yet, with all these differences—sometimes in interpretation and sometimes with the facts themselves—there emerges a pattern of a man who, fundamentally, taught love, acceptance, and tolerance.
That is the essence of Jesus' teaching. He said it himself, quoting the "heart" of the Jewish faith: "`Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind'" (Matthew 22:37)
And he summed up the rest of the Old Testament—the Law of the Prophets—as "Love your neighbor as yourself" (Matthew 22:39).
To this, at the very end of his teaching (at the Last Supper), he gave those closest to him a final command. "A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another" (John 13:34–35).
By these scriptures, one might imagine that christians are neutral, but consider this ...
Is an approving attitude towards the bearing of arms confined to professional soldiers? Not at all. At the last supper, Jesus' final instructions to the apostles begin: "When I sent you without purse, bag, or sandals, did you lack anything?" "Nothing," the apostles answer. Jesus continues: "But now, if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one." He ends by observing "what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment." The apostles then announce, "Lord, behold, here are two swords," and Jesus cuts them off: "That is enough." (Luke 22: 36-38).
Even if the passage is read with absolute literalness, Jesus was not setting up a rule that every apostle must carry a sword (or a purse or a bag). For the eleven, two swords were "enough." More importantly, Jesus may not have been issuing an actual command that anybody carry swords, or purses, or bags. The broader, metaphorical point being made by Jesus was that the apostles would, after Jesus was gone, have to take care of their own worldly needs to some degree. The purse (generally used for money), the bag (generally used for clothing and food), and the sword (generally used for protection against the robbers who preyed on travelers, including missionaries, in the open country between towns) are all examples of tools used to take care of such needs. When the apostles took Jesus literally, and started showing him their swords, Jesus, frustrated that they missed the metaphor, ended the discussion.
Even when reduced to metaphor, however, the passage still contradicts the rigid pacifist viewpoint. In the metaphor, the sword, like the purse or the bag, is treated as an ordinary item for any person to carry. If weapons and defensive violence were illegitimate under all circumstances, Jesus would not have instructed the apostles to carry swords, even in metaphor, any more than Jesus would have created metaphors suggesting that people carry Ba'al statues for protection, or that they metaphorically rape, rob, and murder.
A few hours after the final instructions to the apostles, when soldiers arrived to arrest Jesus, and Peter sliced off the ear of one of their leaders, Jesus healed the ear. He then said "No more of this" (Luke 22: 49-51) or "Put your sword away" (John 18: 10) or "Put your sword back in its place, for all who draw the sword will die by the sword" (Matthew 26: 52). (The quotation is sometimes rendered as "He who lives by the sword will die by the sword.") Jesus then rebuked the soldiers for effecting the arrests with clubs and swords, for Jesus was "not leading a rebellion."
After considering these passages I'm not given the idea that Jesus would ever go to war at all, but his final instructions to the apostles do indicate that self defence is ok, but like Jesus said, "he who lives by the sword, will die by the sword"
I would say NO, christians, by Jesus own words have a right to defend themselves, and that's not being neutral.
Acadian
True Christians neutral in War?
by Van Gogh 74 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
acadian
-
Van Gogh
Auldsoul,
I am not talking about a (neutral) organization as such or Jehovah’s Witnesses as a (neutral) group. Jim Penton did all the homework on that one.
As I stated in my first post in this thread: it is about a sense of global brotherhood; (not the organization as such) it is about sincere motivation of Christian love; it is about what one actually practices; it is about an end result. It is about a group of sincere peace loving individuals who happen to belong to a larger group, organization or church. A larger group can somehow facilitate a smaller group of individuals. The latter is the group I am referring to and have encountered. It is not an organization. It would rather transcend an organization.
VG -
fleaman uk
Himmler planned to use Jehovah's Witnesses to "pacify" remote areas
of captured Soviet territory, so that they wouldn't fight the Nazis in years to come
Sorry,i dont buy that.A reliable source please.?
-
jwfacts
If you are talking about a group within an organisation than there are many people that fit that. As listed above there are religious groups amongst Christianity that are pacifists. In WW1 the JWs assisted in non military service much as the SDAs still do, which is a loving way of behaving. There are certainly many pacificts amongst most religions, and many people do not support any war, but are walked over by their politicians, such as Bush.
Australia is sending peace keeping troops to Timor, and whilst the WTS condemns such a move, Australian soldiers know they are risking their lives to promote peace and bring order to that region, before it escalates into uncontrollable violence. The WTS view is quite narrow in giving a black and white rule that says all war and anything connected to it is evil.
-
LittleToe
I recall having an arguement with a householder on the subject of whether JWs were pacifists. I argued that we weren't, but was losing badly.
If you would defend your family, why not your neighbour, as a good Samaritan.
If your neighbour, why not your locality, be it village, town, or city?
If your locality, why not your country?
When educating yourself on the subject it's worth researching the "just war" theory. I personally found it eye-opening. After all, do we have any clear indication that Cornelius resigned his post as a Centurion?
The picture is a little larger than we were led to believe. It's almost getting boring remembering that little fact!
-
deeskis
Agreed, shades of grey..............
The just war theory has merits, but I like the "Jimminy Cricket Theory", (gotta love Walt Disney!)
When you get in trouble and you don't know right from wrong,
give a little whistle!
Give a little whistle!
When you meet temptation and the urge is very strong,
give a little whistle!
Give a little whistle!
Not just a little squeak,
pucker up and blow.
And if your whistle's weak, yell "Juminy Cricket!"
Take the straight and narrow path
and if you start to slide,
give a little whistle!
Give a little whistle!
And always let your conscience be your guide -
Van Gogh
Thanks everybody for you comments!
It will give me a lot to think about.
I find it interesting that a principle that to me signified an essential part of Christianity, does not present a dilemma for most of the posters here. In comparison I read a lot on JWD about feeling guilty about something minor as taking part in celebrating birthdays etc. Birthdays present themselves every other week or month though.
I guess the "just war" dilemma will become evident for a Christian when actually deciding if a war is to be considered just, when taking responsibility for it, enlisting, looking the enemy in the eyes and pulling the trigger without a bad conscience
In that scenario, there is a problem when subject to a draft in an unjust war. In case of a war to be considered just without a draft, and you are in a position to enlist, do you join or hide behind morals? A lot of the participants will be at a carefree age. It also depends from which side of the argument the group pressure comes.
VG -
Honesty
Van Gogh: Hundreds of thousands of Christians died in the trenches. If they had refused the orders of their irresponsible generals, they might have been executed anyway, but without adding to the bloodshed. It is a matter of individual Christian responsibility. Whether Christians kill other Christians or Muslims does not matter.
For over 2 years a "sitting" U.S. President watched as millions of Jews were gassed to death. The only reason he did anything was because Japan launched a surprise attack on U.S. military bases on Dec. 7, 1941.
I suppose he forgot to read the following Scripture:
I will make you into a great nation, I will bless you, I will make your name great, and you will be a blessing. I will bless those who bless you, I will curse those who treat you with contempt, and all the peoples on earth will be blessed through you. Gen 12:2-3
-
metatron
The Himmler plan to use JW's to pacify conquered areas was referred to in a Nazi internal letter, as published in the book
"Nazi Persecution of the Churches". It may be out of print but some larger libraries may have a copy. Keep in mind that it is not a
stretch - even the Society has spoken about Himmler using Witnesses in trusted positions, to care for SS families and shave
SS officers. I wonder if further research would show that female Witnesses helped care for "Lebensborn" children - "Aryan" infants taken
from conquered areas and adopted in SS families. Such are the sort of things included in "neutrality" in a totalitarian country.
As for the rest, I get horrified by some of the naivete I encounter about war. Has everything about men like Hitler and Stalin
been collectively forgotten? Did sanctions work? Did protest work? Did bombs and bullets work? ( yes) Did giving away Czechoslovakia
prevent war? or did it embolden the Nazis? ( it did, the Allies were then seen as weak)
Keep in mind , too the false comparision of self-sacrificing Witnesses in WW2 with the world. Countless men and women sacrificed
their lives to defeat the horrors of Fascism. The Three Chaplains story is worth repeating, showing the enormous nobility of brave men.
It was soldiers who liberated the death camps, not sanctions and not prayers. In the story of the concentration camps, this aspect
gets ignored in Witness-land.
metatron
-
AuldSoul
I guess the "just war" dilemma will become evident for a Christian when actually deciding if a war is to be considered just, when taking responsibility for it, enlisting, looking the enemy in the eyes and pulling the trigger without a bad conscience.
Van Gogh,
According to the group within a group that you reference, there is no such thing as a "just war" unless it is the one God wages against unrighteous humanity. And even then, they will not aid God according to their current teachings.
Which war would you classify as "just", Van Gogh? And why? Would the group within an organization agree with your assessment?
Conscience can only ever be exercised individually. However, the group within a group to which you refer routinely abdicates the authority of their individual conscience to the authority of the consciences of the Governing Body (as a group).
It also depends from which side of the argument the group pressure comes.
I agree. And there are never only two sides from which pressure will come. It always remains up to the individual conscience, but that conscience might be in conflict with the organization and then what? Endure disfellowshipping to follow one's conscience? Or pretend that one is part of a group within an organization that cleaves to the notion that they will never fight in any war, including God's just war?
Is there a "just war" that humans should fight in?
Respectfully,
AuldSoul