Amberrose: Of course. But Drew should be smart enough to figure these out himself.
Why the Watchtowers "War" argument is totally bogus
by drew sagan 66 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
metaspy
Drew, I knew of 2 JWs who joined the military while active good standing witnesses.
In regards to becoming a majority, I think the closest the society has come is on the island of St. Helena.
I believe the yearly report shows a stunning 1:30 ratio of witnesses.
Yet that is not enough to rule or even have the ability to elect someone(even if they did vote). -
garybuss
So are Witnesses pacifists according to the Watchtower? Or is their refusal to participate in military action a political motivated action that says they will not support a competing government not run by them? Aren't Witnesses really NOT pacifists? Wouldn't they fight willingly if they were called to wage war by their political party the "Society"?
Are Witnesses really neutral? Are they neutral proactive? neutral reactive? or neutral inactive?
If they're neutral proactive or neutral reactive, how does that work? Because proactive and reactive imply action. If they're neutral "inactive", how did they oppose the Nazi political party in Germany in the 1930's and 40's. Opposition implies action and neutrality implies indifference. Did they oppose the Nazi political party with indifference? How did that work?
From my point of view, It seems like the Witness Society could be politically indifferent or the Witness Society could oppose a political party but the Witness Society couldn't do both. One is a lie. Which one? Or are they both a lie?
So let's get this straight, The Witnesses claim to be politically inactive and politically indifferent AND the Witnesses claim that THEY are the only religion that opposed the Nazi political party. If they opposed the Nazi Party then they lied about being indifferent. If they didn't oppose the Nazi Party then they lied about opposing the Nazi Party. So which did they lie about?
Aren't Witnesses really a political party masquerading as a religion? Isn't a kingdom really another word for a government? My dictionary says a kingdom is a political or territorial unit ruled by a sovereign. Kingdom this and kingdom that doesn't sound very non political to me. It sounds political and nothing else. Aren't "Kingdom" Halls really "Government" Halls? Isn't the Witness message really a political message? The Witness kingdom will rule the earth.
The Witnesses are led by a "Governing Body". That's a body of governors, not a pastoral committee or a prophet body, but a government body. The Witnesses look like a political party, they act like a political party, and their message is a political message.
The religion angle is a subterfuge, a legitimacy angle, a way to stay in business while undermining established governments. How long will they continue to get away denying what they really are?
The Witnesses are an organized dissent to established legitimate governments.
By the way it was an ex-Witness riding a tank and carrying a gun who got the Witnesses out of the Nazi prison camps during World War 2. Who do ya think really opposed the Nazi party? Inactive Witnesses in the camps or ex-Witnesses on tanks carrying guns? :-) -
VoidEater
The Witnesses are an organized dissent to established legitimate governments.
Well, now, that's a way of looking at it I hadn't considered before...Gary, you're putting scary things in my head!
Beyond the rhetoric...yes, they are a self-contained petty dictatorship, though world spanning. They have complete control over their citizens. They recognize no other governmental authority as valid.
They might actually be dangerous if someone put that preaching energy into political activism.
-
proplog2
Yeah VoidEater:
They claim allegiance to another Kingdom. They believe as their leader Jesus in a Kingdom that will crush all other kingdoms.
Yeah VoidEater turn them over to the authorities so they can kill them. They deserve to die because they are no friend of the emperor.
Impale them. Impale them. Impale them. -
Hiddenwindow
Great thoughts. I enjoyed them.
Their arguments are generic and show a very low level of reasoning.
The same could be said of many other arguments used by the Society. Sometimes I am amazed of the "low level", as you put it, of their points. Many of them are purely infantile, and no one seems to care. For instance, one that has always intrigued me is the explanation given for the disappearance of the dinosaurs. The issue is a minor one, but the reasoning seems a joke, namely, that Jehovah created an excess of vegetaion and then created the dinosaurs so they could eat it and, in the interim, left humanity wondering for thousands of years what really happened to them. Again, the issue may not be that relevant, but the low level of reasoning blows my mind. How can people with such mentality, with such poor intellectual capacity call themselves "God's only channel of communication"?
-
proplog2
Drew Sagan:
Let’s start out with "Contrary to fact hypothesis ".
"I believe this to be a totally bogus argument based upon faulty comparisons."
That is a statement of your belief not a statement of fact.
You then proceed to construct a "story" a "scenario". Significant phrases used in your future Witness land:
"If
the Jehovah's Witnesses everbecame a majority in a particular country or geographical area their arguments would be proven totally wrong." (There’s that word "totally" again)."Let us say that..."
(Pretend? - Let’s pretend that...)
You follow that with a bunch of questions about the nature of some imaginary country made up of Jehovah’s Witnesses. Those are questions that are legitimate to develop your story line. But, no one has to answer such questions. JW’s could give appropriate answers but it would fit the story they want to tell.
You may be right but there is no way of determining this based on a hypothetical situation. You are treating a hypothetical claim as a statement of fact. There is no emperical evidence for claims about non-existant events.
At best you present a likely story.
This in itself is a red herring. It's aim is to distract attention from the facts of Jesus' sermon on the mount and that there is no way to justify war based on the love Jesus advocated. Further it distracts from the fact that Christendom has failed to follow their alleged leader on one of Jesus' most important teachings.
-
heathen
The thing I see is the flip flop in dogma which they claim they are now in subjection to the worlds governments which are controlled by satan the devil. I guess that makes them politically servile in which case makes them politically active. The kingdom itself is believed to be the invisible rule of jesus christ.A kingdom can rule from a distance and use emissaries and diplomats on it's behalf . They can even use force which the bible does say God himself uses . To me when jesus said happy are the peaceable for they shall be called sons of God he is telling people to be pacifist .
-
drew sagan
You may be right but there is no way of determining this based on a hypothetical situation. You are treating a hypothetical claim as a statement of fact. There is no emperical evidence for claims about non-existant events.
Nice to see you totally missed the point.
The Watchtowers arguments are not wrong in some untested hypothetical claim, they are wrong because it is an unfair comparison! The only way to make the argument fair is to put the hypothetical in there!
I use the illustration of a football game. While the game is going on a star player drops the football during a crucial play, loosing the game for the team. A guy in the stands then makes the comment that he is "better at football than the star player on the field because he has never dropped a football". Problem is, the guy in the stands has never even played football, let alone professional football! He has no idea what it is like to be on the field. The guy in the stands it making a totally unfair comparison. Nobody can say they are "better" than other people in regards to certain situations when they personally have not ever had to deal with it. It's also important to point out the guy in the stands never says he is better because he "wouldn't have dropped the football". This is not what he is saying. He is only saying he is better because he has not ever dropped a football.
The illustration sounds absurd. How can a guy who has possibly never even touched a football able to say he is better than a star player on the field? While you never can actually "prove" they guy in the stands is better, that is irrelevant. The guys claim doesn't become true just because you can't prove it!
This is what the Watchtower does. They have never had to deal with the issue of self governance. Just about all of the people they criticize have. In order for the argument to be fair the Watchtower would either have to take this into consideration in their arguments, or create hypotheticials that describe what they would have done in that position.
But they never do. Instead of accepting all of the dynamics that make up this issue, they keep their reasoning very simple. They make it seem like this is a black and white issue. They unfairly say that they are moraly superior because they don't fight war. It's easy to say that when you are a minority hiding behind the majority to protect you. -
MissingLink
What other religions (christian or otherwise) refuse to go to war?
My father was making this argument to me the other day - that the JW were unique in not killing their own "brothers".