Why the Watchtowers "War" argument is totally bogus

by drew sagan 66 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Burger Time

  Drew you said, "If the Jehovah's Witnesses ever became a majority in a particular country or geographical area their arguments would be proven totally wrong. Let us see how."

  Now tell me how else can you take this statement? You make a claim that IF the JW's became the majority then their arguments would somehow be proven wrong. How is this not a hypothetical?

  Also all this would have to work if the Dubs changed their stance on running for office. You can be the majority and still have a ruling minority.
• 

  drew sagan

  Now tell me how else can you take this statement? You make a claim that IF the JW's became the majority then their arguments would somehow be proven wrong. How is this not a hypothetical?

  It is because they have no philosophical model built on how to deal with such a situation. If such a situation did eventually come up their current model would be proved wrong because it would be inadequate.
  
  If the JW's want to claim total moral primacy on the issue, their reasoning has to be universal. The hypothetical shows that their reasoning is not universal. It's not about what would happen, but instead what they are not taking into consideration when making their comparisons to other religions. It is limited to minority groups.

  Also all this would have to work if the Dubs changed their stance on running for office . You can be the majority and still have a ruling minority.

  This is not about how such situations would work out!
  
  I.E. - If the Watchtower wants to compare itself to the Catholic Church, at the very least they would have to give us a philosophy that would tell us what should and would have occurred if they where in that position. And even at that it would all be total conjecture. Unless the JWs ever held such power we never would know how they would deal with it.
  
  The fact that we never would know what would happen is key. Because of these unknowables comparisons made between the two groups are incomplete. How can a group automatically claim they are superior when there is no way of really knowing if they really are in all respects?
  
  I like to think of it as a country where there is two political parties. One has been in the minority for many years. The reason it is in the minority is because it never runs for office and never offers any ideas on how the situation of the country can be made better. Instead it simply claims it is better because it never has made the decisions the ruling party has made.
  
  It's easy to talk how much better you are when you have never been tested. It's even worse when you talk a big talk and then never even offer a solution. That's what the JWs do.
• 

  proplog2

  Drew:
  
  Christians are willing to die rather than kill. If I am willing to die and suffer imprisonment rather than kill - my very life accuses those who would go to war. The facts speak for themselves.
  
  Do you understand that the behavior of Christians is based largely on their own choice. That's why their numbers will always be a minority.
  
  Majorities that are called "Christian" have become majorities by giving up their piety.
  They have compromised Christian principles on the altar of convenience and popularity. They have chosen to become friends of the world.
  
  You have failed to accomplish the mission stated in your threads title.
  
  The Watchtowers War argument is simply that followers of Christ don't go to war.
• 

  drew sagan

  proplog2,
  You are are oversimplifying a very complex issue in order to turn it into a black and white debate. You ignore any of the dynamics that make this issue complex. It's rather obvious that you want to believe that this issue has a simple answer and will continue to resist any discussion on the complexities.
  
  Your latest addition to this thread is nothing more than an attempt to get this discussion moving into a theological debate. I've made it very clear that the interpretation of Biblical texts (what it means to be "Christian") where not what my argument was about. Only one comment you have made touches on my arguments, and I will comment on them. You said:

  Majorities that are called "Christian" have become majorities by giving up their piety.
  They have compromised Christian principles on the altar of convenience and popularity. They have chosen to become friends of the world.

  In this extremely narrow minded and ignorant comment you continue to ignore anything that will show this situation to be a complex one. Again your argument fails when put up against what I have been saying over and over again. A group cannot claim to be morally superior in all respects unless you have been tested in the same ways.
  
  My point was never about how moral or "Christian" war is. It is about the limits a religion (or group) has in the claims it can make about its own primacy. You have not once commented on this.

  You have failed to accomplish the mission stated in your threads title.
  
  The Watchtowers War argument is simply that followers of Christ don't go to war.

  You can assert whatever you like but your continued insistence on distorting my arguments and trying to change the subject show it is you that have failed to make a point.
• 

  jwfacts

  I agree Drew, because of being a Geographical Minority, JWs can leech off the services of armies. However, it would be a very different story if JWs were the majority, you would very quickly see a change in stance on war.

  Pacifism is untenable as it lets the worlds tyrants dominate. There will always be the Hitlers, Pol Pots etc, so if the majority of people were Pacifists they would have free reign to dominate the world to the detriment of everyone.

  I have embedded an article on war that you may find interesting.
• 

  drew sagan

  Thanks for posting that jwfacts
  
  One of the most ignored problems faced by those who want to advocate total neutrality or pacifism is the concept that there needs to be defense of the innocent.
  
  It is one thing to criticize people for engaging in acts of war and violence to advance their own agendas, but what happens when people who are innocent need defended? Is it a moral sin to sit back and let the innocent be terrorized? As the article you quoted says,:

  However, Pacifism and Neutrality are untenable positions. We cannot overlook the constant rise of political despots, and Pacifism simply allows thugs to dominate our world. Pacifism and Neutrality can only work for smaller religions, which need to be grateful for the protection afforded them by national armies and police forces, without which they would not exist. When a religion grows to the point of becoming the state religion it is required to defend itself militarily.

  and

  But for as long as tyrannts start war, there will be the need for armies to defend themselves and their countries inhabitants.
• 

  jwfacts

  JWs overlook is that they are neutral, but not pacifists, meaning that they are allowed to defend themselves with violent force. Hence, if a country was established solely filled with JWs, and they were attacked by a neighbouring army, under the current Watchtower position they would form an army to defend themselves.
• 

  FreeWilly

  Prop
• 

  FreeWilly

  Proplog,

  With all due respect you appear new to the concept of debate and logical fallacy. It's as if you read a list of logical fallacies and began to look into Drews post for any that might apply - however loosely. This becomes obvious when you cite supposed examples:

  
  DREW "I believe this to be a totally bogus argument based upon faulty comparisons."

  That is a statement of your belief not a statement of fact.

  Of course it is a statement of belief. Drew never represented it otherwise. In this particular case Drew must by necessity use a hypothetical since, as he claims, he believes the Societies argument is "based upon faulty comparisons". You attempt to deconstruct the argument by claiming the comparison is counterfactual.

  You may be right but there is no way of determining this based on a hypothetical situation.

  EXACTLY! That is precisely why the comparison fails. It is only hypothetical in the case of JW's which is the basis of Drews claim. Remember? - one of Faulty comparisons. You inadvertently support Drews claim by citing the incongruity!

  You then loose it altogether here:

  It's aim is to distract attention from the facts of Jesus' sermon on the mount and that there is no way to justify war based on the love Jesus advocated.

  Now prop.... not only do you fail argumentation 101, but you let loose a whopper with that one!
• 

  proplog2

  Drew Sagan: I argue in good faith. So work with me on this. I like arguments that are succinct. So please clarify. Would you say this is an accurate statement: "Jehovah's Witnesses believe there is a scriptural basis for not fighting in wars." I'm not asking whether they interpret the scriptures correctly. I just want to know if you think the statement in quotes is true or false.