The most successful teaching of Jehovah's Witnesses and an amazing new book on the divine name

by slimboyfat 327 Replies latest watchtower beliefs


    The fact remains that JWs refuse to kill each other.....SBF

    As long as it`s WBT$ Approved, JW`s are happy to kill each other.

    The WBT$/JW`s have hospital liaisons to make sure.

    JW`s do not accept life-saving Medical Treatment.

    Image result for Jehovah's witnesses hospital liaisonImage result for Jehovah`s witnesses no blood.

    You`re ignoring the obvious.

    You`re usually one of the 1st, to think outside of the box.

  • ThomasCovenant

    'Witnesses refuse to kill each other.'

    Yes. But here's the thing. An unlikely scenario I know, but, what would happen if the Governing Body had new light

    to say that in certain circumstances it was now allowed, as in ancient Israelite times, to kill fellow Witnesses?

    (to say that in certain circumstances it was now allowed to have organ transplants).

    Blind obedience is all that is necessary. People like yourself would have a hard time reconciling the new light but I knew some who would follow what the leaders said no matter what.

  • slimboyfat

    Well if that ever happened then they would no longer be fulfilling the requirement to love one another by not taking up arms against each other. It seems a basic tenet of natural justice that you judge people on what they actually do rather than what they might do. As it stands the record of JWs refusing to kill each other as other religions do is impressive.

  • Ucantnome

    As it stands the record of JWs refusing to kill each other as other religions do is impressive.

    but I think that this has been shown on the thread to be that they do not join in wars for various reasons, like not supporting the 'defense efforts of Christendom' not because of pacifism.

    If JW's controlled the world or large parts of it and there were 'apostates' I could imagine there maybe a religious war as the smaller group, the apostates tried to protect themselves from the effects of the 'shunning' at the minimum and the 'stonings' at the worst.

    maybe similar to things we have seen throughout history.

    so that's my thoughts and I'm not that impressed

  • Ruby456


    For hundreds of thousands of years humans haven't had access to weapons of mass destruction, in the age of nuclear weapons a commitment to peacemaking and a refusal to fight seems increasingly sensible, as more countries gain access to nuclear weapons (which seems inevitable) the 'naivete' of pacifism will continue to seem less and less 'extreme' laika

    I agree. I think also that we need to make a distinction between war and struggle and strife. In reply to luvnithatexams i would say that it is struggle, contention and fighting that has occurred for thousands of years rather than war. And this ties into the fact that each person is an individual and obviously everyone's needs and desires are going to be different and this will result in contention etc but not necessarily war. And Nuclear war adds a further dimension that suggests how important it is that there be deterrents to war. People making conscientous objections in such a context brings something positive to to the table.

    the other things disfellowshipping, shunning, refusal of blood etc do result in huge personal grief and outrage but this would fall under contention and group v individual struggles. How one stands on this is a significant aspect of self determination but these are not acts of war that mobilse armies.

  • Ruby456
    coftya day agoa day agoa day agoDeepity alert!
    in a very important context secularity puts the person at war with themselves - Ruby

    here is another way to put it - self actualisation involves struggle against oneself as well as against one's environment but there are resources available. So be prepared for the challenge of life outside of JWS. is that better cofty?

  • cofty
    the record of JWs refusing to kill each other as other religions do is impressive - SBF

    Actually their neutrality is not impressive it is shameful.

    When JWs opted out of WWII that was morally reprehensible.

    Fascism is evil. It could only be defeated through war. Chamberlain proved that beyond doubt. The moral thing to do would have been for JWs to fight against the Nazis regardless of what country they belonged to.

    A meaningful comparison is not between JWs and the Christian churches of Germany, but between JWs and the Christian churches who supported the war effort against Hitler.

    The churches who supported the Allies were morally superior to the cowards who hid behind neutrality.

  • cofty
    is that better cofty?

    I understand every word but not when you arrange them in that order and in this context.

  • slimboyfat
    When JWs opted out of WWII that was morally reprehensible.

    Like August Dickmann? If everyone had acted as he did there would have been no war and no Holocaust. Dickman and men like him were true heroes.

  • Ruby456

    Cofty, Okay.

    But when A person leaves it is hard hard work, mostly enjoyable hard work, but I think it is important to understand this

Share this