Why the Watchtowers "War" argument is totally bogus

by drew sagan 66 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  BluesBrother

  A group can still be a minority while at the same time be a majority in a geographical region. Was Jesus Christ really talking about his followers being the minority not only in the world, but also in all geographical regions?. The only reason we see something different today as opposed to centuries ago is because of modern technology that allows religious minorities to sprout up all over the world very rapidly. In the old days it was all about geographical distribution. Religions developed slowly around the regions where they started. Eventually highly concentrated areas of "believers" became the majority in a geographical area. Only modern technology (newspapers, books, magazines, phone, internet, ect.) makes it possible for minorities to sprout up globally.

  What did Jesus and the Bible writes say?

  (Matthew 7:14) . . .whereas narrow is the gate and cramped the road leading off into life, and few are the ones finding it.

  (Matthew 24:9) . . .and YOU will be objects of hatred by all the nations on account of my name. . .

  NB. Early Christianity spread like wildfire around the known Roman world , with no printing or Inter net

  ". There actually are Jehovah's Witnesses that choose to join the military ("go to war") but they are removed from membership and unfairly discounted. "
  
  It is not unfair, If you are a Witness then you cannot remain one if you join up, That is a prerequisite of joining the dubs and any who do so, cannot be counted any longer.

  If you discount the Witnesses reasons for not signing up in military, then you discount the whole argument used by other churches and indeed The Bible itself.: that a Christian is "No part of the world" that he "Does not need to fight" that he "Belongs to Christ" and is part of a Christian brotherhood that is International.

  I am quite happy to agree to differ on the subject of Militarism but I think it not fair to speak as though conscientious objection were a J W invention, which it clearly is not
• 

  drew sagan

  Early Christianity spread like wildfire around the known Roman world , with no printing or Internet

  But they did not spread globally as I stated in my comments. There were still major limitations for early Christianity and geography played a huge role in that. Now an organization can sprout up in a developed country and as soon as it gathers enough funds can begin to set up missionary bases globally. C. T. Russell was a success in part to his strategic use of newspapers, something that simple wasn't possible 2,000 years prior. In essence, with modern technology minor groups have a much bigger chance of gaining an audience then they did in the past. They also have the ability to create many small minorities of believers globally. So while a religion may be in small minority in every geographical religion on earth, now more than ever before does it have the ability to have high membership numbers. A little bit in every place adds up. They are always the minority, but still are impressive because of the "global organization".

  It is not unfair, If you are a Witness then you cannot remain one if you join up, That is a prerequisite of joining the dubs and any who do so, cannot be counted any longer.

  It's not unfair that they get removed from the religion. I agree with you on that. What I believe to be unfair is how JWs will slyly say that "there is no Jehovah's Witness that chooses to go to war" when in reality the exact opposite is true. There are members of the Jehovah's Witness religion that join the military (got to war), but they are not allowed to remain members because of the rules. The important thing to understand is that they are removed after they have already made the decision. Thus they made the decision as a Jehovah's Witness.
  
  Ray Franz in his book In Search of Christian Freedom talks about the same thing in reference to other common "sins" that JWs criticize the world for being involved in. While Watchtower literature is filled with condemnation for "the world" and how it is filled with immorality, drugs, and other things it glosses over the fact that many people while active members of the Jehovah's Witness religion have done the same things. Just because somebody is removed from membership after they have done something doesn't make them less of a member. The way the WTS and JWs in general talk about members of their religion who make decisions they do not like is what I feel is unfair.
• 

  proplog2

  TD:
  
  "we do not know how they would have acted with
  that level of power and at that point in history. "
  
  Yes, that is exactly why it is useless as a tool to advance an argument.
  
  What form would the argument be?
  
  SINCE JW's have never been in the majority THEREFORE: They shouldn't bring accusation against those who are?????????????? Who says? Is that a universal a priori rule?
  
  Being in the Majority is never an excuse or justification for moral wrong.
  
  Prophets were killed because they criticized their Kings and Priests. Were prophets out of line since they never themselves held the position of King or Priest?
  
  Only 1 person in the USA gets to be president. Does that mean nobody has the right to criticize them?
  
  I am not speaking as a JW apologist. I don't hesitate to criticize them. And to be fair, the Catholic Church has moved decidedly in the direction of Non-Violence. Actually, the early Church scholars spoke out against violence. It was mostly the secular authorities that pushed imprisonment,torture and death. The emperors would seek out Church authorities that would fit in with their paranoia over losing their thrones to various factions.
  
  Somehow, the teachings of Christ were abandoned to the point that Christians were willing to kill each other.
• 

  Burger Time

  proplog the biggest problem is at best your argument from the bible for not going to war is flimsy. It is no different then Drew's argument. You don't and can't know for a fact if Christ was against war personally, or if Paul, Peter, James or any other apostle was. Just as Drew will not and will probably never know how JW's would react having to govern themselves. Either way both your arguments are good arguments. It's just splitting hairs.
• 

  drew sagan

  proplog2,
  You continue to ignore the basic premise for the argument I have puth forth. You said:

  SINCE JW's have never been in the majority THEREFORE: They shouldn't bring accusation against those who are?????????????? Who says? Is that a universal a priori rule?
  
  Being in the Majority is never an excuse or justification for moral wrong.

  Pointing out what you feel to be moral wrong is a fine thing. JWs are more than welcome to bring any accusation they like against those in the majority. I never said they couldn't! Quit drawing conclusions from my arguments that are not there.
  
  To be clear, I am not talking about the exposure of moral wrong. We are instead talking about the limits a minority religion has in asserting their own moral superiority over majority religions.
  
  Tell me just what are the limits of what a religion (or an organization) can claim about itself?
  
  The Watchtower always puts forth their Christian neutrality doctrine as if it is a complete defining doctrine that should be accepted by all people worldwide. But their doctrine has limits. It does not take into consideration many (if not all) of the complexities faced by majorities regarding war, protection of the innocent, self-defense, rule of law, ect. Because their are limits to their teaching it is not all encompassing. Therefore how can the Watchtower claim total moral superiority on this issue when their own teachings are not in themselves complete?. That is the issue.
  
  The Watchtower can make a case that they act better than other religions that share the same dynamics (mainly being a minority), but because of the dynamics of this issue, any comparison to major religions where the members are in the majority is a faulty comparison.
  
  Burgertime, you said:

  will not and will probably never know how JW's would react having to govern themselves. Either way both your arguments are good arguments. It's just splitting hairs.

  I suggest you read again what I wrote as well as TD. We are not talking about hypotheticals. If you believe the thrust of the argument I have put forward to be about hypotheticals then you have not fully considered it.
• 

  Dagney

  Thanks for the topic Drew. I really appreciate it.

  I've done a 180 in my viewpoint on the war argument, which even surprises me!
• 

  proplog2

  Drew: Why do you bring up a hypothetical case at all? Just drop it. The best you can say is that if JW’s were a majority they just might possibly behave in a non-christian war-like manner. You may even be able to say that as a minority they might suddenly go crazy and start a jihad. Anything is possible. But not all things are equally probable.

  I am beginning to get the feeling that you aren’t arguing in good faith. You stubbornly refuse to admit to the speculative nature of your claim.

  Why should I believe that JW’s NECESSARILY would behave like majority religions?

  How can I respond at this point when there is no solid evidence for your claim. How can you say that you are absolutely sure JW’s would be warmongers if they become a majority.

  Now lets consider your brief summation of JW’s stance on war.

  Let us follow a basic outline of Watchtowers line of reasoning:

  1. The Bible says Christians should not participate in war.

  2. Most Christian religions (christendom) and their members have participated or supported many wars.

  3. Jehovah's Witnesses do not participate or support any wars.

  4. Jehovah's Witnesses are better than Christendom religions because they follow the bible in this regard.

  They reason that are morally superior to Christendom (and people in general) because they do not do what Christendom does.

  If two religions believe that the Bible says Christians should not participate in war and then one of the religions carries on warfare against other fellow Christians wouldn’t you say that one appears to be following Christ and the other one isn’t? Wouldn’t you say it is preferable for a religion to follow the teachings of its founder?
• 

  Mincan

  Their war argument is bogus becaues it's awesome to hold a barr in one hand like that one dude in Full Metal Jacket. and its cool when you have fake guns and pretend to shoot stuff...

  ands if its fun to shoot your best friend in the ass with a BB gun, how much funner to shoot enemies with real guns?
• 

  Burger Time

  Proplog what does any of that have to do with Drew's argument. So they don't go to war, who cares? Also your assuming that every JW does not go to war. I am sure there are many who do but who are then DF'd for doing it. This doesn't change the fact that while in the org they still wanted to go.
• 

  drew sagan

  proplog2
  You continue to ignore everything I write. You refuse to even accept what my argument is so you create entirely differant arguments that are not related.
  
  At this point I am beginning to feel that you simply want to discuss this point ad nauseum in order to wear me out and declare victory in reasoning. All you do it complain, but you offer nothing that actually addresses the issues I raise.

  Why do you bring up a hypothetical case at all? Just drop it. The best you can say is that if JW’s were a majority they just might possibly behave in a non-Christian war-like manner. You may even be able to say that as a minority they might suddenly go crazy and start a jihad. Anything is possible. But not all things are equally probable.

  The hypotheticals are brought up to show how limited the Watchtowers reasonings are to minority groups. It has nothing to do with what would happen in such situations. You continue to bring up the same tired argument and in every post I have pointed out that you are misreading the argument.

  Why should I believe that JW’s NECESSARILY would behave like majority religions?

  That does not matter. My argument is about the limits a minority group has in claiming primacy over majority groups. They hypotheticials show the limits of the minority groups. IT IS NOT ABOUT WHAT WOULD HAPPEN! STOP SAYING THAT IT IS!

  How can I respond at this point when there is no solid evidence for your claim. How can you say that you are absolutely sure JW’s would be warmongers if they become a majority.

  How can I respond to somebody that repeatedly ignores every single argument I make and instead creates his own distorted version to tear down (straw man).

  If two religions believe that the Bible says Christians should not participate in war and then one of the religions carries on warfare against other fellow Christians wouldn’t you say that one appears to be following Christ and the other one isn’t? Wouldn’t you say it is preferable for a religion to follow the teachings of its founder?

  And here you use the over generalized thinking of the Watchtower society. You ignore all dynamics and try to make a complex issue a rather simple on. In doing so you tilt the argument unfairly to one side. You can never make a complete comparison between a minority and a majority.
  
  You can assert all you like that one group is "more Christian" but if that group has never been tested in the same situations the other group has faced the comparisons will never be complete. That is my argument. The Watchtowers reasoning is incomplete and thus can never claim primacy.
  
  I'm sure you will ignore everything I say and make arguments against things I never said.