True Christians neutral in War? (page 6)

Van Gogh

Honesty:
Point taken. I defer.
Adding to this, for many people the holocaust is a valid reason not to believe in God.
From that perspective, mankind (represented by those in power) perhaps failed a Divine obligation/commission to take responsibility to protect against evil... and honor the Divine in ourselves.
It all depends in which stage we choose to negate the evil. But you are right, once you arrive at the killing fields action seems to be called for. In that case, we "enlightened" humans are guilty for letting Combodia, Rwanda, etc happen.
VG

LittleToe

VanGogh:You don't have to be a Christian to have difficulty pulling a trigger...

gumby

Didn't Jesus say to render unto "Caesar the things that are Caesar's and unto God the things that are Gods?" "Caesar's" draft during WWII was necessary to defeat the undeniable EVIL going on in the world.

Narkmeisterbastard replied,

LOL. Who was "Caesar" in Germany or Japan?

I just had to repeat this as I thought this thought was worth a thousand words. Excellent!

Gumby

fleaman uk

Keep in mind that it is not a

stretch - even the Society has spoken about Himmler using Witnesses in trusted positions, to care for SS families and shave

SS officers.

Yes that was the case.But whether such a fairly insignificant group as the JW,s would have been used in the German plans for "lebensraum"in occupied Estern Europe?(sp?)...no i dont think so.

AuldSoul

In that case, we "enlightened" humans are guilty for letting Combodia, Rwanda, etc happen.

I agree. Preventing such atrocities is just, even if force or killing is required. And the group within a group to which you refer...how would they view such prevention? As just? Or as a lack of neutrality?

Peace-loving goes beyond neutrality.

Respectfully,

AuldSoul

Van Gogh

Auldsoul,
When you read my previous posts on this thread, you will see that already completely agree with point made by Narkissos:
“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).” A wrested conscience is a contradictio in terminis.
I admire my friend from the “group within a group” for his principles. He would have objected to serving, regardless of the org. It is just that the standpoint of the org facilitated and attracted the adherents to this stance. It is interesting though that he can barely keep his eyes dry when we walk through my neighborhood and streets where he lived during the war as a child. (Anne Frank lived five streets down from me.) Tens of thousands of Jews were deported from here. But to HIM, this is his main motivation for being a conscientious objector. He is proud of the years he spent in jail paying for his principles. And yes, to him there is no just war – the same position as the org. I have not yet developed a meaningful post-org position on the subject discussed here and have yet to examine my motivation.
Incidentally, I just learnt that my nephew recently joined the Dutch army. I cannot say I am not a little bit proud of him. I do have the secret fascination with the male martial thing. When I was drafted in 1981, I could have opted for the UN peace-keeping mission in Lebanon. A lot of guys returned pretty screwed up from that. During my medical, I ran into a fellow Jdub whose unbelieving dad was actually a rear admiral. He joined.
You are right, the neutral/anti-war position is imposed and its value therefore substantially diminished or even negated. But fighting someone else’s war is also imposed, whether through law or group pressure. Under these circumstances, individual conscience can be buried or be absent. That’s the whole problem.
Just playing the Devil’s advocate here in trying to explain an organizations anti-war stance ?, Once you have a Highly Controlled global Religious organization, its individual members become less anonymous and identify with each other. You might run into one wearing another uniform (but the same assembly badge). At a certain level this policy will promote “peace” or solidarity within that group. A necessary precondition for creating and maintaining a brotherhood or common bond within this organization, facilitating its survival. Cultic? The same mechanisms are at work in forging the common bond within a fighting band of brothers.
Thanks everybody for all your comments and input; I respect them. Sorry to ramble and please, go easy on me ;-) I am re-examining long held beliefs for myself outside of matrixes or imposing mentors. Less judging; more leeway.
VG

AuldSoul

Van Gogh,

I both understand and respect that need to reexamine—free from the thought constraints—whether there was benefit to certain positions held. I also understand that you agreed with Narkissos' point. I was attempting to flesh out the impact on the discussion of concept you raised of "just war" which would automatically be counterpointed by the possibility of an "unjust war."

Organizationally, it was not left to the individual conscience to decide whether they wanted to continue as part of the group and also decide that a specific exercise of force was justified.

Peace-loving does not equate to neutrality, it would be evidenced by an active work toward peace. I know for certain there are efforts for which I would continue to be a conscientious objector. I am equally certain there will be efforts for which I will be a proponent.

For instance, I am opposed to the efforts undertaken against Iraq on the basis of (1) no request for assistance from the US issuing from the citizens of that nation and (2) no legal basis for which to invade the sovereign territory of a foreign power. Violation of UN Resolutions is clearly within the purview of the UN itself, alone, to address. Any other power which presumes to take up arms in the UN's stead to enforce its resolutions does so without legal backing of any kind. I understand that the reason was primarily economic, but it is inexcusable nonetheless.

I would not be similarly opposed to exercising force to provide relief for the residents of Darfur, a conflict which the Bush Administration has already (correctly) labeled a genocide. There have been repeated pleas for International assistance issuing from the citizens and there is clear legal basis for full scale intervention on their behalf. I would be a proponent, in this case, for militarized intervention.

In both cases, the WTS will remain neutral. Any within their group who decide to act in either case will be cast outside their group—on the basis of Organized to Do Jehovah's Will p. 255, par. 2, a policy the organization itself overstepped.

Cultic? Yes. Without any leeway.

Respectfully,
AuldSoul

heathen

I think the main downfall of the just war argument is the question of -- Who determines a just war? In the US the only just war, as defined by our constitution, is one that preserves and protects the republic. The US military was restricted from being used as a mercenary militia by the constitution . That's why the US usually waits till something devestating happens before trying to "justify" war , such as pearl harbor or 911 . Most americans don't seem to even have a clue what the constitution says in the first place . That's why it's easy for me to see why those types of disasters happen , because it's the only legal way for the US government to "justify" war. Of course other countries have no problem justifying war on their own terms as well . All you have to do is demonize somebody and presto , watch people become fanatical about killing .

I think the WTBTS claims they are only obligated to preach about the kingdom and therefor are seeking peace and persuing it as jesus stated . Jesus said happy are the peaceable for they shall be called sons of God . I really don't see any moral support for the act of hating and killing in jesus words. Being no part of the world is very much to do with not involving yourself in petty disputes all over the world . I really think jesus would rather see his followers suffering and dying than to have them take part in the cause of death and suffering .

Van Gogh

I forgot to thank for the most outspoken dissenting opinions as well, as expressed by heathen and proplog2. These comments from the latter poster resonated with me in particular:
"The real deal is overcoming nationalism. The Bible is a story about transcending human selfishness. The selfishness of nations is an unecessary exaggeration of the selfishness that helped humans evolve in the first place...Nationalism is the greatest evil on earth... War makes widows and orphans."
Overcoming and transcending.
VG

LittleToe

Setting aside the bigotted form of nationalism, why shouldn't an individual support their country, if they believe it's in the best global interests?

If we truly are Lords of this planet, don't we have a responsibility to do our best to improve it, including resort to equal and exacting force if required?

As a side note I should add that this needn't necessarily devolve to attacking a significantly weaker force on the unsubstantiated allegation that the may have weapons that could potentially threaten your nation from afar.

LT, of the "devil's advocate" class

True Christians neutral in War?

Share this