True Christians neutral in War? (page 2)

jgnat

The way I look at it, we can beat our swords in to plowshares when we don't need them any more. The prophecy is a promise, not an instruction. I believe there is such a thing as a just and "good" fight. The day we don't need weapons is the day there are no more bullies on the earth.

One bible story I pondered for a long time was a small group of people who found a remote valley, lush and untouched. In that wonderful place, the people prospered...and got soft. They were taken over by the next roving band of bandits. (Judges 18).

Also, JW's aren't the only pacifists. Check out the Quakers. They are active pacifists rather than just neutral observers. They have a school in Lebanon dedicated to bringing together historical enemies.

http://www.thefriend.org/articledisplay.asp?articleid=493

M.J.

JWs will allow for someone to kill another person if it is in self-defense or the defense of one's fellow man. In that sense they are not pacifists. But once that can of worms has been opened, now we have to define what constitutes "defense" and how far that goes. Is it inherently wrong for a governing entity to provide for defense as one of its roles? By extension, is it wrong for a cop to take out someone who is directly threatening another's life? How about a swat team getting into a gun battle with a gang of armed robbers? What would be the right thing to do if an armed force of bandits crossed the border to terrorize a town? How is organized defense different from "spontaneous" defense of someone else? It would appear to me that the "governing authorities" have even greater authorization to utilize deadly force than the average citizen as per Romans 13.

As for another group which does not participate in war, check out the Christadelphians. They've been opting out of wars since the Civil War.

AuldSoul

Van Gogh,

identifying mark of truth

The identifying mark of Jesus' disciples is love. (John 13:34, 35) This quality surpasses all gifts of the spirit and its absence renders any other fruit of the spirit worthless. (1 Corinthians 12:27-13:3; Galatians 5:22, 23)

The only way in which love can be demonstrated is individually. Therefore, the only way disciples of Jesus can be recognized is individually.

If this logic doesn't work for you, here is another way to use this principle to arrive at the same point.

Either Jesus' disciples would be recognized organizationally or individually, but not both ways. If it is organizationally, we would expect Jesus to be using one selected organization. The overriding characteristic of this organization would be love.

Keep this in mind, because I will use Isaiah 2:4 to find out whether the organization is loving.

Organized to Do Jehovah's Will (2005) p. 155, par. 2
Concerning those who renounced their Christian faith in his day, the apostle John wrote: “They went out from us, but they were not of our sort; for if they had been of our sort, they would have remained with us.” (1 John 2:19) For example, a person might renounce his place in the Christian congregation by his actions, such as by becoming part of a secular organization that has objectives contrary to the Bible and, hence, is under judgment by Jehovah God. (Isa. 2:4; Rev. 19:17-21) If a person who is a Christian chooses to join those who are disapproved by God, a brief announcement is made to the congregation, stating: “[Name of person] is no longer one of Jehovah’s Witnesses.” Such a person is treated in the same way as a disfellowshipped person. The presiding overseer should approve this announcement.

The organization (not an individual) maintained an Associate membership to the United Nations Department of Public Information for 10 years. Is it possible to describe an organization as loving that has a policy of shunning others for something the organization itself did? Even if only one person during that 10 year period was judged and disfellowshipped by use of this published standard (which is identical to the standard in the om book), that judgment renders the organization inexcusable. (Romans 2:1,2)

You see, if we examine based on whether the organization is loving then we know for certain the organization is not taught by Jesus. (John 13:34, 35)

Respectfully,
AuldSoul

gumby

The WTBTS uses as a means to downplay a christian stance as regards to war in saying the early christians didn't get involved. What they fail to inform their ranks is the the early christians had the PAX ROMANA as a means to keep peace during their time and that it was not a.... "gee, I think I'll join the Army" situation...nor were people "inducted" into the army, so there is no way for them to make a modern day comparison.

Jesus himself honored Cornelius....an army officer. He never told him he would be disassociated if he didn't change his occupation. Jesus said the "Higher Powers" were gods "ministers" to carry out justice.

Me, I doubt I'd fight for the majority of the reasons the U.S. has went to battle for. 99% of the time it's not for a nobel cause, but rather for a selfish one.

*waits for attacks by flag waving radicals*

Gumghandi

Gumby

TD

"And he shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many people: and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more." (Isaiah 2:4)
"Proclaim ye this among the Gentiles; Prepare war, wake up the mighty men, let all the men of war draw near; let them come up: Beat your plowshares into swords, and your pruninghooks into spears: let the weak say, I [am] strong." (Joel 3:9-10)

I think JW's and others tend to evaluate the metaphor from the vantagepoint of an industrialized society and overlook the simple exigencies of metalurgy in a primitive culture.

metatron

I don't see a general rejection of "neutrality" as nihilistic. If there is no personal Creator who is willing to speak with us directly,

( a la Joan of Arcadia) then we are left to figure it out for ourselves. If you're stuck in Nazi Germany or Iran or some other horrid

country, whatever you do to support the economy is going to support the oppression.

I am not a pacifist - and I note with some irony that the very people who decry the war in Iraq seem to overlook the fact that

places like Darfur and the Congo are unlikely to reform without the threat of 'boots on the ground', wielding weapons.

Like it or not, this is the way our world operates.

I told a bunch of admirers of the Dalai Lama that all of his prayers for peace haven't gotten a square inch of Tibet back from the

oppressive Chinese. They didn't like that - and I notice in an interview that he hesitates to criticize the US about Iraq because

he says we don't know yet how it will all turn out, perhaps for the better. Perhaps all that reincarnation gives him a better overview

of history!

One of the painful things about war is that we have to grasp the ugly paradox of what it can do - justify mass murder while

sometimes making the world a better place. It's a tough call, an intuitive judgement that is forced upon us, like it or not, living

as we do in a culture that tries to find guidance from ambiguities written in dead languages.

metatron

Narkissos

Van Gogh,

I see his (and your) point. Actually the JW stance on war and army was probably the main reason why I didn't leave the organisation sooner -- and I think it is the case of many JWs who grew up during the Vietnam war or other independance wars (such as Algeria's for France). Actually we were delighted to mistake the WT "neutrality" stance for something closer to the antimilitarism which was dear to many in our generation. What we didn't want to see is that consciencious objection makes much more sense (whether one likes it or not) when it is really grounded on individual conscience, not the rules of an organisation imposed to its members under social penalty (d'fng and shunning). And otoh we didn't want to hear the paramilitary overtones of the old Rutherfordian WT speech (God's soldiers, Jehovah's army and so on).

Shining One

Evil triumphs when good men do nothing. Think about it. Also, what extent do you take 'love thy neighbor'? Would you defend a neighbor from a criminal? How about a neighborhood? How about a country? How about rescuing a people from a deranged dictator (Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Chairman Mao, Saddam Hussein)?
Rex

deeskis

I'm glad your friend is still your friend.

True there are aspects of the org's beliefs that are just, fair and make sense...................but on the flip side many more that don't add up.

My lovely, faithful pacifist dad spent six months in prison for his faith over the conscription issue. I have always been proud of him for his stance, but it did affect his life and i think it was a waste.

I think it should be a matter of conscience,

let's face it, the israelites were pretty bloodthirsty in the name of Jah.

Judas I.

Depend on how you define "war".

"War" as killing people? Or a spiritual "war"?

True Christians neutral in War?

Share this