The most successful teaching of Jehovah's Witnesses and an amazing new book on the divine name
Asserting something does not make it so.
Laika, welcome to Coftyworld, where Cofty saying makes it so, and "that's ridiculous" (argumentum ad lapidem) is the favourite response.
I'd like to be able to "like" your recent posts on this thread about war, but it seems my "like" button has been disabled. I hear it's the same for a number of others too.
Vanderhoven7 you are right that shunning does not show love. At the same time refusing to kill each other is very good. I can see both sides, and don't feel the need to use a bad to negate a good or vice vera. Each is what it is.
There was a handful of people from other groups who also refused to fight in Nazi Germnay: a few Adventists, Baptists and other pacifists from other groups. These were small in number and generally categorised along with JWs in the camp system.
At the same time refusing to kill each other is very good......SBF
You`re ignoring JW`s support global genocide.
Every one of them lives in gleeful anticipation of that day.
Just because JW`s expect someone else to do it for them, doesn`t make them nice people.
At the same time refusing to kill each other is very good.
Yes, but refusing to join the military does not speak to the alleged unique love amongst themselves. And it probably does not speak to their love of their enemies either. Proof of that is that they look forward to God soon destroying 7 billion non-JWs at Armageddon.
And again, they are not really pacifists as are Mennonites and Quakers.
Pacifists, my arse.
WT 15 Nov '51.
''In the case of where a father or mother or son or daughter is disfellowshiped, how should such person be treated by members of the family in their family relationship?—P. C., Ontario, Canada.
We are not living today among theocratic nations where such members of our fleshly family relationship could be exterminated for apostasy from God and his theocratic organization, as was possible and was ordered in the nation of Israel in the wilderness of Sinai and in the land of Palestine. “Thou shalt surely kill him; thy hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. And thou shalt stone him to death with stones, because he hath sought to draw thee away from Jehovah thy God, . . . And all Israel shall hear, and fear, and shall do no more any such wickedness as this is in the midst of thee.”—Deut. 13:6-11, AS.
Being limited by the laws of the worldly nation in which we live and also by the laws of God through Jesus Christ, we can take action against apostates only to a certain extent, that is, consistent with both sets of laws. The law of the land and God’s law through Christ forbid us to kill apostates, even though they be members of our own flesh-and-blood family relationship.''Cut out all the bullshit / obfuscation (I had to look that word up after reading SBF's post) and it says
''We'd love to kill them if only God/Jehovah/Yahweh whatever, would let us.''
WT 1st Feb '51
12 Many of our readers or public officials may ask: If Jehovah’s witnesses of today are linked up in one unbroken chain with those witnesses of ancient times with such a history, why is it that they do not carry out this tradition of military combat? Why are they not found in the ranks of the armies of Christendom? Why do they seek exemption from military service? Why do they go so far as even to refuse to enter the Public Service camps maintained for or by pacifists and conscientious objectors, or take any part in the defense or war effort? Ask Jehovah’s witnesses why, and they will tell you it is not because they have turned pacifist. It is because they have conscientious objection to taking part in such war and defense efforts of Christendom and the rest of the world, their objection being based on God’s Word, the Bible. But, you ask, how can they be conscientious objectors and not at the same time pacifists? They are not against war between the nations, and they do not interfere with the war efforts of the nations nor with anyone who can conscientiously join in such efforts. They fight only when God commands them to do so, because then it is theocratic warfare.
13 Were Jehovah’s witnesses today to claim to be pacifists, it would mean for them to denounce all the pre-Christian witnesses of Jehovah who took up arms to uphold Jehovah’s universal sovereignty and his theocratic nation of Israel. But this denunciation we cannot make. Jesus Christ never did so, and he is Jehovah’s greatest witness, who has earned the title “The faithful and true witness”. (Rev. 3:14) Jehovah himself is no pacifist.
Laika - Can you really not see why your argument is pathetic?
Do you really need it explained? Do you know so little about history that you can pretend unilateral pacifism would lead to anything but the genocide of the naive?
SBF - Sometimes we have discussed things so often I just can't be bothered going through it all again.
I must have been off that day when you used an actual argument. "That's ridiculous" has been pretty standard all along.
Now with the even more persuasive variation: "do I really need to tell you how ridiculous you are?"
ThomasCovenant technically of course JWs disavow the term "pacifist", preferring conscientious objector. And they would agree for the reasons you point out, that God and his servants have used violence in the past, and Jesus will wage war in the future. The fact remains that JWs refuse to kill each other, or kill for the state here and now, which in practical everyday terms is what many people understand pacifism to involve.