Increase of war--staggering statements from the Really Teach book (page 2)

Atlantis

Mentioned above. What Does The Bible Really Teach? Scan of page 88 http://putfile.com/pic.php?pic=4/11119561537.jpg&s=x11 Scan of page 89 http://putfile.com/pic.php?pic=4/11120102583.jpg&s=x11

WOW! To both of you, MJ and Carla. With researchers such as you both, how can we possibly lose the war of information with the WTS? How the hell do you kids manage to pick up these sites which give the REAL story behind the hype of the Organisation?

The WTS absolutely revels in producing statistics, as if out of a hat, telling us how dreadful armed conflict is today, and how impossible it is to work out the ways of peace in our time. I would have had a greater respect for their articles if they volunteered to actually DO something to ease the pain of these conflicts, rather than gloat on the sidelines like a flock of vultures, scoring cheap doctrinal points over the suffering of others.

It is interesting to dovetail the two reserchers quoted by MJ and Carla. Of course, the objective behind the WT articles, is not to tell us the facts of the matter, but to reinforce the image that THEY alone have the true Bible perspective on war. How often, with monotonous regularity, have they quoted Matt 24:7 to tell us the end is coming day after tomorrow. The question is: Is this what we are seeing today?

The ignorant rantings of the WTS say :Yes. But both the researchers presented by MJ and Carla say otherwise. Both, the historian, Eric Hobsbawn, whose article is found in the "Guardian Unlimited" journal of Feb 23, 02, and the Human Security Centre report [part 5] bring out something that the WTS either, inadvertantly, or deliberately has overlooked.

Matt 24:7 tells us that , not just war per se, will usher in the last days, but INTERNATIONAL warS [plural] is what does it. If 1914 was the harbringer of the Last Days, there would have to have been international conflictS to tell us this. [Despite it being an inter-state war, it was, to quote the vernacular, the only game in town] This we did not see. Not only was there to be Nation against Nation, but also Kingdom against Kingdom. The WTS has always assumed this to be a singular conflict, but why should it be so? Surely Jesus was prophesying a global conflict within global conflict in a world wide catastrophe of unparalled destruction unknown in human experience.1914 will, in sum, be a blimp, and chicken feed in comparison to the coming conflict that Jesus warned about. [If, as most evangelicals, one takes Jesus words to have a fulfillment beyond the 1st C - I will concede that many feel that Jesus' words do not resound down through the centuries, having been emptied of fulfillment back then]

So, not just war per se, but international wars is what we are looking for, See any? Not according to the researchers quoted. While INTERNAL conflicts within nations may have marginally increased in our time, both reveal that International conflicts which are part of the last days have in fact DECREASED in our time. In other words, for Jesus words to have a measure of fulfillment today, He would needed to have said:"Nation WITHIN nation, and Kingdom WITHIN kingdom". Which of course He did'nt.

The uncomfortable conclusion that awaits WTS scrutiny is this: Either Matt 24 has been fulfilled to the limit of its prophesy in the 1st C, or it is still to be an unfolding drama in the not too distant future. But, there is no credible evidence, as presented by those two reports, that it is being enacted today.

Cheers

BluesBrother

The article linked up (from the same source as the quote by the WTS) said this

It would be easier to write about war and peace in the 20th century if the difference between the two remained as clear-cut as it was supposed to be at the beginning of the century, in the days when the Hague conventions of 1899 and 1907 codified the rules of war. Conflicts were supposed to take place primarily between sovereign states or, if they occurred within the territory of one particular state, between parties sufficiently organised to be accorded belligerent status by other sovereign states. War was supposed to be sharply distinguished from peace, by a declaration of war at one end and a treaty of peace at the other. Military operations were supposed to distinguish clearly between combatants - marked as such by the uniforms they wore, or by other signs of belonging to an organised armed force - and non-combatant civilians. War was supposed to be between combatants. Non-combatants should, as far as possible, be protected in wartime.

It was always understood that these conventions did not cover all civil and international armed conflicts, and notably not those arising out of the imperial expansion of western states in regions not under the jurisdiction of internationally recognised sovereign states, even though some (but by no means all) of these conflicts were known as "wars". Nor did they cover large rebellions against established states, such as the so-called Indian mutiny; nor the recurrent armed activity in regions beyond the effective control of the states or imperial authorities nominally ruling them, such as the raiding and blood-feuding in the mountains of Afghanistan or Morocco. Nevertheless, the Hague conventions still served as guidelines in the first world war. In the course of the 20th century, this relative clarity was replaced by confusion.

No as I see it, he is saying that the figures quoted for wars in pre 20th century did not include the violence and insurrections that happened, then as now. Today we count them in as wars. That would change all the figures. Please tell me if I get that wrong

Who said something about "Lies, damned lies and statistics"

sf

"Jehovah's Witnesses, War and the Misrepresentation of Tort".

sKally

jwfacts

Any one that has read history realises that we are living in one of the most peaceful times in history. WW1 was not the first world war, there were several larger wars before that one.

The only really outstanding war was WW2, that is what puts the figures so high. Along with that is obviously the ongoing population growth.

daniel-p

If you prove the Earth is experiencing one of the most peaceful times in history for humans, it still fits the WT agenda. Shall I mention "peace and security!"?

Qcmbr

I think that there are two types of war that the bible references:

1/ The ongoing war between good and bad.
2/ Physical wars.

For the biblical physical wars of prophetic revelation to increase as outlined in the scriptures I don't think we would be in any doubt as to them happening as we would presumably all be involved and society would be tribalised? Therefore this must refer to a future time.

The spiritual war is arguably the greatest its ever been depending upon which battlefield you say its being fought.

Families? Morals? Belief? Happiness?

yaddayadda

The 31 year period from 1914 to 1945 does seem almost to be the bloodthirstiest period of history, perhaps apart from the 13th century. One can almost understand why Judge Rutherford got all excited. But what seems most odd is that since 1945 the world has been in relatively the most peaceful period in all human history. Doesn't Carl Olof Jonson's book have quotes from historians that support this? If it's true then it certainly seems that the four riders of the apocalypse went back into their stalls in 1946.

Uzzah

The Conventions refered to in the article are the Geneva Conventions. In the two World Wars the COnventions were discussing the very clear lines between peace/war, combattant/civilian, etc.
In the 40's it was recognized that not all 'wars' were declared. Therefore the introduction of Additional Protocols of the Geneva Conventions were introduced. The Second Additional Protocol specifically addresses Domestic Internal Armed Conflict.
There is movment ongoing to revisit the existing Conventions and Protocols to address the more recent changes to battles including the intentional attacks on civilians as a tool of war, non-uniformed combattants.
Learning more about the history of the Geneva Conventions and the mandated role of the Red Cross Movement as the protectors of the conventions has been one of the more interesting elements of my job with this group.
Uzzah

drew sagan

I find it amazing how eaisly pursuaded I was that the "signs" of the last days where so visible. I like what the one poster said about the four horses of the apocolypse going back to the stalls. That is certanly what seems to have happened according to the theory that the last days began in 1914. Taking the very basic view that these things would happen during Christs IMMENENT RETURN instead of some 100+ years of last days helps one see the strangeness in WTS interpretation, which is so desprate and dependent upon the ever growing threat of destruction.

Personally I see a world that is in transition, unlike any point in human history before. With technology, a global economy, terrorism, and nuclear weapons that can destory the globe there is no doubt that mankind has spunoff into a dangerous new direction. But to use such things as a way to scare people into thinking that something is happening when it is not(like Christs presence), is simply being presumptuious.

Increase of war--staggering statements from the Really Teach book