Pacifism is Morally Indefensible

by cofty 78 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • cofty
    It is not only cheaper but healthier in the long run for a victim to part with the most valuable of possessions

    Not if lives of your loved ones are at stake.

  • Simon
    I agree with the education part but one must recognize the trouble of government inspired propaganda getting in the way of ones education or biasing one's education, as well as news media bias.

    Yes, educating yourself is not always the same as being educated. There's a real problem right now with leftist ideologies running rampant and unchecked in universities. They are a breeding ground for unbalanced extremism (and probably always have been - where does this notion that academia is 'pure' even come from?).

  • TD


    It is sometimes better to submit to rape, heh? Also, consider HIV and Hepatitis

    That's not what I said at all. The opinion of the virtually every expert in self defense is that there are pros and cons to screaming. And when the latter clearly outweighs the former, it is not the best tactic.

    Based on Christianity it is forbidden for JW to go to war. How is that hypocrisy for an individual? Or for the church?

    My observation was not about war. It was about the fact that a scream, by its very nature is a call for help.

    Do you have daughters, Fisherman? (I have three) What would you personally do if one of them was attacked?

    I would be willing to bet it would be a helluva lot more than just calling the police and praying while you wait for them to arrive.

  • TD


    JWs teach that lethal force can be used to protect themselves and their families.

    Have they modified the stance they took in the early 80's? (i.e. That you should trust in Jehovah rather than armed, or even unarmed force.)

  • Lost in the fog
    Lost in the fog

    I think about the 10 commandments. The law said "thou shalt not kill."

    But that only applied to the killing of your own people (hence the whole cities of refuge arrangement) it didn't mean not to kill in general. Because the Israelites waged war against all the inhabitants of the land. Committing some dreadful atrocities if the accounts are accurate.

    So surely if the circumstances call for it warfare is acceptable today?

  • captaingrl

    hear, hear! The "War is peace" line is one of the things I don't like about Orwell. Sometimes waging war is the only way to ensure peace. For instance, we are now largely at war with the Muslim world, with thousands of Islamists spilling into Europe to cause havoc. War is the only way to ensure peace!

  • smiddy3

    The sober fact is the God Jehovah`s Witnesses worship was and is a God of War.

    He sanctioned wars ,condoned them supported them and was compliant with them in pre-Christian times .

    And according to the Christian section of the Bible he has not changed threatening to bring the War of all Wars upon mankind at Har ma geddon to slaughter Billions of people simply because Adam and Eve ate some fruit that he said don`t eat.thousands of years ago.

    Jehovah supported wars in this system of things and his followers obeyed him to preserve their way of life .

    Shouldn`t we do so also ?

    Jehovah`s Witnesses around most of the world enjoy their freedom of religion today because of the sacrifice of millions of men and women who gave their lives in war so that they could enjoy this freedom to preach their message whether true or false.

    They just died to give you the freedom to do so.

  • BluesBrother

    To clarify, Jehovah's Witnesses do not claim to be pacifist. They advocate the most violent solution to the world's problems. Instead they pursue a course of neutrality to the political world of today.

    There are degrees of pacifism. One may believe that to take life under any circumstance is morally wrong. Another may just reject the millitary.

    My thoughts?

    One can never make a valid assessment of the rightness of a war until much later . Your government will always tell you that your cause is just . No side is ever completely right in all respects. NB WW2 began in 1939 ,well before any genocide .

    Today the vast military spending leeches money from the economy. I find that obscene.

    I am too old now anyway but I would never have trusted the word of a politician enough to go to war and bear arms in his name...

  • Simon
    I am too old now anyway but I would never have trusted the word of a politician enough to go to war and bear arms in his name...

    I suspect that if leaders actually led people, and were at the front lines, there would be far fewer wars.

    But yes - hindsight is everything, to the individual soldier they don't know if they are going to be fighting a WWII or a Vietnam type campaign. This is where the media is often culpable - they don't report and investigate and expose the truth, they act as propagandist for the war, even more so now as they like the footage and stories to get viewers.

Share this