From my own personal experience the Watchtowers position on war always appeared to be one of the most difficult issues to navigate. A number of times when I was first leaving the WTS I spoke with JWs who all used this argument to show me how "wrong" I was about the "truth". While I knew the Watchtowers arguments where wrong, I had a very difficult time figuring out exactly why it was wrong. I did not have a rebuttal to their arguments and did not fair well in my discussions. While I doubt that having better understanding of why they are wrong on this issue would have changed the outcome of the conversations I had in the past, I still think it is advantageous to know why their reasonings on this are totally bogus.
There are usually two ways that most will try and argue with a Jehovah's Witness on this point (at least from what I have noticed). Usually arguments against them center on either interpretation of Bible texts, or talking about other religions who do not support war. In my personal opinion both of these arguments can be rather weak and more importantly are not complete. So let us forget about whether or not their interpretation is correct. As you will see that is not very important to the point that needs to be made. Let us also forget about other religions that do not "go to war". If you ever tell the JWs they aren't the only ones that do this they will simply turn it around on you and say that those churches are still in "error" because of other things they are doing. Because the Watchtower is always playing a game of process by elimination such arguments mean very little. Without focusing on these two common arguments, how exactly is the Watchtower wrong on this issue.
An error of faulty comparisons
Any two things can be compared with each other, but that does not mean that such a comparison leads us to a realistic conclusion. One of the biggest problems the Watchtower faces with it's position that Christians should not participate in war is based upon what is essentially a faulty comparison. Let us follow a basic outline of Watchtowers line of reasoning:
1. The Bible says Christians should not participate in war.
2. Most Christian religions (christendom) and their members have participated or supported many wars.
3. Jehovah's Witnesses do not participate or support any wars.
4. Jehovah's Witnesses are better than Christendom religions because they follow the bible in this regard.
In looking at the above line of reasoning you see that much of the Watchtowers argument rests upon comparing their own practices verses the practices of Christendom. They reason that are morally superior to Christendom (and people in general) because they do not do what Christendom does.
I believe this to be a totally bogus argument based upon faulty comparisons.
The key phrase that totally destroys the Watchtowers argument is: "geographical majority". JWs are not nor will ever be the majority in any society!. They depend upon never being the majority in a geographical area. If the Jehovah's Witnesses ever became a majority in a particular country or geographical area their arguments would be proven totally wrong. Let us see how.
Let us say that for whatever reason the Jehovah's Witnesses made huge converts in one specific country (absurd discussions about uptopian socities are pointless because no real society has ever been the majority on the enitre planet!). Key questions to ask are: How would that country function? Would there be a government? Would there be a rule of law? Would there be currency? Who would develop the infrastructure of the country? Would there be an Army do defend and protect the citizens from outside threats?
None of the above questions are assesed in the Watchtowers reasonings. They don't have to! Because they are a minority (and are betting they always will be) they can simply avoid the issue of self governance altogeather. If the Jehovah's Witnesses ever became the majority in a geographical region they would be faced with more problems then they ever could possibly handle. How can the Watchtower say that they are better when they have never actually faced the same sorts of situations those they criticize have? Unless the Watchtower ever would become a majority that deals with issues of self governance any comparison they make in this area falls short.
BUT WAIT! A Jehovah's Witness may cry out. The road to life is narrow. Jesus knew his followers would never have to govern themselves.
Rubbish!
A group can still be a minority while at the same time be a majority in a geographical region. Was Jesus Christ really talking about his followers being the minority not only in the world, but also in all geographical regions?. The only reason we see something different today as opposed to centuries ago is because of modern technology that allows religious minorities to sprout up all over the world very rapidly. In the old days it was all about geographical distribution. Religions developed slowly around the regions where they started. Eventually highly concentrated areas of "believers" became the majority in a geographical area. Only modern technology (newspapers, books, magazines, phone, internet, ect.) makes it possible for minorities to sprout up globally.
Thus the Watchtowers argument for not going to war is based on a very bad comparison. They have never faced the same challenges. How can they say that they are so much better when they don't even have policies in place that say what they would do in such a situation (of course they are betting on the fact that it will enver actually happen).
No Jehovah's Witness goes to War
The above statement is one that JWs will use from time to time. I personally believe it to be a complete misrepresentation of the facts. Is there really any such thing as a Jehovah's Witness that can go to war???
Watchtower policy states that once a JW joins the military the religion the person has decided to "disassociate" themselves. In effect, they are saying that by joining the military a JW is making the choice to leave the church.
I know personally two or three people that where Jehovah's Witnesses that joined military. They made the decision to join the military while they where JWs. I would even say that there is a good chance that they still believe the things the Watchtower teaches and even still consider themselves JWs. In talking with other JWs and ex-JWs I have yet to find somebody that doesn't know of a person who doesn't know of at least one person who was JW that joined the military.
The Watchtower has a slick way kicking out members who join the military. By saying that it is the members "choice" to leave they then can give themselves the ability to say that "no Jehovah's witness goes to war". In reality though, it is an illusion. There are JWs who have chosen to go for war, but they have been punished by their religion for it.
A much more accurate statement would be that "Jehovah's Witnesses cannot keep their membership in the Church if they go to war". Of course this does not sound nearly as nice as making it seem that every single Jehovah's Witness on the planet has come to the same moral conclusion.
-----
So there you have it. As a recap here are two reasons why the JWs "no war" argument is bogus:
1. They are a minority that has never been faced with the issue self governance that other religions and socities have had to deal with.
2. There actually are Jehovah's Witnesses that choose to join the military ("go to war") but they are removed from membership and unfairly discounted.
To be clear, I hate war. This argumentation is by no means a slam on the anti-war message. The major problem with the Watchtowers argument in my opinion isn't that they see war as something bad, but that they look at it way to simplistically. Their arguments are generic and show a very low level of reasoning.
Why the Watchtowers "War" argument is totally bogus
by drew sagan 66 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
drew sagan
-
drew sagan
Just wanted to add that I'm sorry this thread is so long! I have problems making things short. :)
-
drew sagan
bttt
-
stillajwexelder
An excellent thread drew sagan - I thoroughly enjoyed reading it all
-
proplog2
Drew: Do you really think you have produced a water tight argument? Look over your logic and check for fallacies. You will certainly find them. I see at least one of each of the following: Red Herring Generalization A straw man Contrary to fact hypothesis Trivial Objections So find Waldo. You will learn from the exercise.
-
Burger Time
Good thread. One easy thing to point out which completely derails their whole argument is that of Acts 10 where Cornelius is used by God despite being a highly regarded soldier. Of course we all know the JW's refuse to read scriptures like that, "it was a different time then".
-
VoidEater
Drew: Yes, the entire WTS position as stated boils down to "we will always be within a larger [evil] political entity". It is predicated on never becoming the majority, never becoming a "government".
If I read you right, the central tenet for not going to war is "you cannot become part of the world" - you cannot join an army, support a government through armed forces, join the political process. That only works as long as the WTS is a minority.
What ever would the WTS do if it found it had to govern a large population? Thankfully, we'll never have to deal with that, if the membership figures are any indication. I don't think their implementation of "theocratic warfare" bodes well for their ethics.
-
proplog2
Reformatted: Drew: Do you really think you have produced a water tight argument? Look over your logic and check for fallacies. You will certainly find them. I see at least one of each of the following: Red Herring Generalization A straw man Contrary to fact hypothesis Trivial Objections Can YOU find them? All you need is a little objectivity.
-
Amber Rose
Well Proplog2,
Are you going to bother to support any of your criticisms?
-
jefferywhat
.................tumbleweed................