Why the Watchtowers "War" argument is totally bogus (page 3)

drew sagan

It's an argument they all use MissingLink

I feel this line is usually a "trick" played by the JW. Even if you are able to produce for them a religion that has a similar position, they will then begin to tear that particular religion apart to prove that it isn't "the truth".

That's why I think it is important to realize that they are simply making a bad comparison.

jefferywhat

I agree to a point Drew.

I had a discussion with the General of our Army, who's wife is a witness a few years back and he put a similar point forward.

However, I still think its a morally heightened position to see war as futile, I personally think war is an outdated method for resolving issues, history proves it to be so, but war did stop hitler and it stops a lot now so it has its place.

The way I see it, the witness policy applies in the reality of this system now, they will never be a majority so your analogy is good, but irrelevant as it will never exist.

So you have to argue the position in its form, in its environment.

Its like arguing Newtons gravity theory but on the moon.

MissingLink

I see your point. But it would at least be nice to be able to knock down the claim that they are unique in this position. If I knew of another religion that didn't go to war (ok, I'm stupid) then I could have gotten to the next step of the debate.

proplog2

Drew: When you are arguing a point - hypothetical situations are NOT statements of FACT. Maybe you don't realize that when you make a hypothetical situation the centerpiece of your argument you are grasping at straws. Empirical evidence for claims about nonexistent events is obviously not available therefore any alleged "evidence" is just part of your imagined construct. By treating a hypothetical situation as "fact" you are violating one of the most important criteria in argumentation, namely, having sufficient grounds for your conclusions. There is another assumption that you are making that I will deal with later. JW's are really on solid ground with this issue.

Meeting Junkie No More

Good arguments...

I used to follow the witness way of thinking UNTIL I read a little about Martin Luther's thinking on this matter. Not that I agree with all of Luther's theses, but I was blown away by his musings on the scripture where Jesus said (and this is an interesting use of the word "IF" (vis a vis proplog2)

"IF my Kingdom were part of this world, my attendants WOULD HAVE FOUGHT"

Lots to think about there...not a lot of time to post...wish I could expand more but that has been fodder for my brain for quite a while now....

hillbilly

back during the US draft era...JW's were coached to never agree that :

there had ever been a just war

Yet all will tell you that the old Jewish wars were fought under Gods favor.

Gary B is right...JW's are not pacifist by any stretch.

~Hill

drew sagan

When you are arguing a point - hypothetical situations are NOT statements of FACT. Maybe you don't realize that when you make a hypothetical situation the centerpiece of your argument you are grasping at straws

You continue to ignore the basic premise of my argument. It is not based upon a hypotheticial situation. The hypothetical situations I have given are the result of what needs to be added to the Watchtowers arguments in order for their arguments to become fair. It does not matter what would happen in the hypotheticials or if they ever even happened at all.

Empirical evidence for claims about nonexistent events is obviously not available therefore any alleged "evidence" is just part of your imagined construct. By treating a hypothetical situation as "fact" you are violating one of the most important criteria in argumentation, namely, having sufficient grounds for your conclusions.

You are ignoring the thrust of my argument. The essential point I'm making is that the Watchtower is using an faulty comparison. Faulty comparisons are fallacies! The Watchtower compares itself to other groups, movements, ect that are similar in some respects, but are certainly not similar in all respects. They then exploit the general similarities in order to make a case that they are better. Problem is that they can only claim such a position by being a minority, while many they criticize are majorities.

There is another assumption that you are making that I will deal with later.

I can't wait.

In review of your objections you have yet to actually prove anything. All you have done is accused my arguments of being faulty without actually showing how they are. It's one thing to say something is wrong, it's another thing to prove it. While my original post may have used a few terms that sounded a bit grandiose (my bad) the original argument stays.

I suspect you will continue to want to argue about hypotheticials, but the problem is my argument is not based on them. My argument is based upon the basic facts that members of the Watchtower remain untested in the realm of self governance, rule of law, ect. Any comparisons they make to other groups and religions that have faced such issues is a poor one. As the old proverb states:

You Can’t Judge A Man Until You’ve Walked A Mile In His Shoes

TD

It is not based upon a hypotheticial situation. The hypothetical situations I have given are the result of what needs to be added to the Watchtowers arguments in order for their arguments to become fair. It does not matter what would happen in the hypotheticials or if they ever even happened at all.

Yes. A closely related scenario is where modern Protestant sects, like the JW's and Mormons, elevate themselves through criticism of the abuses of the Catholic church during the middle ages.

Since these groups did not exist in the middle ages, we do not know how they would have acted with that level of power and at that point in history. (We do know that they do not hesitate to abuse what little power they possess today.)

It's exactly because we can only hypothesize that makes both their criticism and the resultant conclusion of their own moral superiority invalid.

drew sagan

Yes. A closely related scenario is where modern Protestant sects, like the JW's and Mormons, elevate themselves through criticism of the abuses of the Catholic church during the middle ages.

Perfect example. Thanks for pointing it out.

edmond dantes

This is an interesting subject and one of the most barmy doctrines put forward by the Borg.

Thy say you can defend yourself and family but you can't defend your next door neighbour nationally.

One of the most stupid remarks I used to hear was " you will be pleased to know during WW2 no one was killed by a JW." of course the answers to that are ; Where was the JW when my home was being overun at gun point? Where was the JW when the invaders murdered the innocents? Where was the JW when my liberty was taken from me at the point of a gun?

The JW was not even carrying a stretcher .

Whatever mankind has achieved, whatever progress has been made throughout its entire history ,whatever brilliant results have been made,it's been brought about by blood, and toil.Whatever blessings we have today did not come about by accident things were learnt and improved by past mistakes .It didn't improve by waiting around for God Almighty to act. Human history has proved that.

the

Why the Watchtowers "War" argument is totally bogus

Share this