Why the Watchtowers "War" argument is totally bogus

by drew sagan 66 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

heathen

the christians were bullied by tyrants in the first century , I don't know if it's pacifism if you believe it's about a spiritual war that is trying to break your integrity to the king of peace , Jesus christ, You do have to brainwash yourself to believing God has control over all situations and repay evil for evil.To some people war is not peace .
proplog2

{reformatted}

Drew Sagan: I argue in good faith. So work with me on this. I like arguments that are succinct.

So please clarify.

Would you say this is an accurate statement:

"Jehovah's Witnesses believe there is a scriptural basis for not fighting in wars."

I'm not asking whether they interpret the scriptures correctly.

I just want to know if you think the statement in quotes is true or false.
drew sagan

Would you say this is an accurate statement:

"Jehovah's Witnesses believe there is a scriptural basis for not fighting in wars."

I'm not asking whether they interpret the scriptures correctly.

I just want to know if you think the statement in quotes is true or false.
I am assuming that by "accurate" you mean in the sense that it represents a complete picture of what Jehovah's Witnesses believe on this issue, but then again it could not. You're going to have to specify (i've typed out a full answer but then deleted it because I realized that the way you have worded it is much to vague).
proplog2

Drew:

I just want to clarify some basics. At this point I am not interested in specifics merely that they (JW's) believe that fighting wars is based on some things Jesus and his apostles said.

I want to salvage our exchange and see where our viewpoints diverge.

Most likely your answer will be yes of course they believe that. And you could search through their publications and go into detail on it. Like other newly formed religions you can expect some ambiguity as they move toward their own particular orthodoxy. But for quite some time they have refused to participate in wars based on their interpretation of the Bible.

Next I would like to know if you think JW's believe there is a Biblical basis for not holding public office? Again I am not going to debate the validity of their conclusions. I just want to establish that they believe there is a Biblical basis for that belief.
M.J.

Great thread, and great point. Their holier than thou attitude on this particular issue is is one of those things that irks me.

It is a fair question to ask, what would the appropriate course of action be for a group of JWs in a geographic situation where there was no governing authority in place?
drew sagan

proplog2, you said:
Most likely your answer will be yes of course they believe that.
You have misunderestimated me.

My response actually is that the statement ""Jehovah's Witnesses believe there is a scriptural basis for not fighting in wars." does not fully represent the Watchtowers position on this issue, nor does it represent in any way the essential conclusion of the argument they try to make. If you believe that it does then that is why you are not on the same page as me.

I have not talked about the Watchtowers scriptural argument, and I think you have noticed that. What I have instead focused on is the Watchtowers argument as to why their specific religion is morally superior to others. Their main argument is always one of comparison. To ignore the comparisons the Watchtower makes is to ignore the thrust of their arguments. The following is a quote from the Watchtower from the Revelation book:
*** re chap. 7 pp. 35-36 pars. 10-11 Rekindle That First Love! ***

When judgment started with the house of God in 1918, the sectarian clergy of Christendom were giving open support to World War I, urging Catholics and Protestants on both sides to slaughter one another. (1 Peter 4:17) Unlike the Ephesian congregation that hated what the sect of Nicolaus was doing, Christendom’s religions had long been riddled with conflicting, anti-God doctrines, and their clergy had thrown their lot in with the world, of which Jesus said his disciples must be no part. (John 15:17-19) Their congregations, ignorant of the Bible’s theme, God’s Kingdom, were not lampstands beaming forth Scriptural truth, nor were their members part of the spiritual temple of Jehovah. Their leading men (and women) were not stars but were revealed to be members of “the man of lawlessness.”—2 Thessalonians 2:3; Malachi 3:1-3.

11 The John class, however, emerged from the tumultuous days of the first world war with a love for Jehovah and for the truth that impelled them to serve him with flaming zeal. They resisted those who tried to introduce sectarianism through practically idolizing the first president of the Watch Tower Society, Charles T. Russell, following his death in 1916. Disciplined by persecutions and adversities, this Christian group clearly received a judgment of “well done” from their Master and an invitation to enter into his joy. (Matthew 25:21, 23) They recognized in the course of world events, and in their own experiences, the fulfillment of the sign that Jesus had given to mark his invisible presence in Kingdom power. From 1919 onward, they moved forward to share in the further fulfillment of Jesus’ great prophecy: “And this good news of the kingdom will be preached in all the inhabited earth for a witness to all the nations; and then the end will come.” (Matthew 6:9, 10; 24:3-14) If their love for Jehovah had been in some way lacking, it was fanned into a flame from that time onward.
Besides these paragraphs being some of the most historically inaccurate the Watchtower has ever produced (i.e. - Watchtower leaders and publications idolized Russell well into the 1920s & the Bible students relative position on war at that time is not even mentioned) they also show the comparative nature that the argument is commonly phrased. Christendom is usually mentioned first, being accused of anti-god, war mongering puppets of sectarian slaughter. Shortly following this will be something that makes Jehovah's Witnesses (in this case Bible Students) look so much better. It is a comparative argument, one is always shown as being better than the other.

Because these types of comparisons are found quite frequently in Watchtower magazines, it is very typical for Jehovah's Witnesses in general to put forth the argument that they have "the truth" because "the don't kill their brothers and sisters in war like other religions do".

In all my years as a Witnesses (and ex- Witness for that matter) I have never heard a Jehovah's Witness put forth their argument about war by saying something like "we believe there is a scriptural basis for not fighting in wars" without comparing themselves to other religions. Since the Jehovah's Witnesses are fixated on being a morally superior religion and are constantly comparing themselves to others, to ignore this part of their argumentation would give an incomplete picture. The statement you have given may define the belief, but it does not define the argumentation they use nor does it mention the conclusion they are always trying to get people to believe.

In this particular thread I am not interested in debating what they believe, but instead what they try to claim having such beliefs prove. There have to be limits to what they can claim about themselves.
proplog2

Drew:

Ok I think I see what your point is. Perhaps the title of the thread threw me off.

When I think of their "War argument" I tend to think of the very arguments that ALL of the peace churches use. But in fact JW's do add an extra hook because they are always trying to convince others to leave their religion and join theirs.

Marketing people talk about a products USP Unique Selling Point. Since Rutherford's time JW's have had an "advertising" orientation so perhaps that explains their focus on comparing religions.

You don't seem to have a problem with their claim to a Biblical basis for their non-involvement in war and politics. Their Biblical stand is no different from the first three centuries of Church history. If you read the church fathers their is a strong similarity between their views on this matter and JW's view.

You have a problem with their comparing themselves to other religions. You are saying that line of argumentation is "bogus".

Do you disagree with these statements?
drew sagan

You have a problem with their comparing themselves to other religions. You are saying that line of argumentation is "bogus".
Yes, thta's why in my first post I phrased the Watchtowers argument in four points that followed their model of comparison.
You don't seem to have a problem with their claim to a Biblical basis for their non-involvement in war and politics. Their Biblical stand is no different from the first three centuries of Church history. If you read the church fathers their is a strong similarity between their views on this matter and JW's view.
I only contend that the Watchtowers position as a minority puts limits on what it can claim about themselves.

Typically the Watchtower will ignore any of the differences between their situation and the situation of the group they are comparing themselves to. A few posts ago you actually did recognize that their is a gap between the groups and offered your own explanation as to how it balances out, stating that when Christians move into the majority they are no longer Christian. I think that such reasoning is narrow minded and rather unreasonable, but at least it recognizes that there is a gap that needs filled.
proplog2

Drew:
JW's are not the only ones in the course of history who have felt neutrality is a necessary requirement of those who would claim to follow Christ.

The early Christians were against war. Tertullian was very clear in explaining why a soldier would be hypocritical to remain as such.

What happened that changed Christians from people who fled and hid from their persecutors to the point where they felt they needed to kill their enemies?

Notice there is a difference between the early christians (1st 3 centuries) and the christians after the third century.

So tell me Drew, what happened?
proplog2
I have raised the question about what changed that the Early Christian Church went from running and hiding from their enemies to killing their enemies in war.
Let's look at the view of Early Church Leaders. This is unusually long. If you are in a hurry read a couple of the quotes to get the general idea. Then proceed to my argument at the very bottom.
Ignatius
Take heed, then, often to come together to give thanks to God, and show forth His praise. For when ye assemble frequently in the same place, the powers of Satan are destroyed, and the destruction at which he aims is prevented by the unity of your faith. Nothing is more precious than peace, by which all war, both in heaven and earth, is brought to an end. (110 A.D., The Epistle of Ignatius to the Ephesians, Chapter XIII)
Jusin Martyr
We who formerly murdered one another now refrain from making war even upon our enemies. (c. 160), ANF 1.176.
We used to be filled with war, mutual slaughter, and every kind of wickedness. However, now all of us have, throughout the whole earth, changed our warlike weapons. We have changed our swords into plowshares, and our spears into farming implements. (c. 160), ANF 1.254.
Athenagoras
We have learned not to return blow for blow, nor to go to law with those who plunder and rob us. Instead, even to those who strike us on one side of the face, we offer the other side also. (c. 175), ANF 2.129.
Irenaeus
The new covenant that brings back peace and the law that gives life have gone forth over the whole earth, as the prophets said: "For out of Zion will go forth the law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem; and he will rebuke many people; and they will break down their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks, and they will no longer learn to fight." ... These people [i.e., Christians] formed their swords and war-lances into plowshares,... that is, into instruments used for peaceful purposes. So now, they are unaccustomed to fighting. When they are struck, they offer also the other cheek. (c. 180) ANF 1.512.
Clement
t is not in war, but in peace, that we are trained. (c. 195), ANF 2.234.

The Scythians, the Celts, the Iberians, and the Thracians are all warlike races. They are also greatly addicted to intoxication and think that drunkenness is an honorable, happy pursuit to engage in. But we, the people of peace, feast for lawful enjoyment, not to wantonness. We drink sober cups of friendship. (c. 195), ANF 2.246

The spiritual man never cherishes resentment or harbors a grudge against anyone -- even though deserving of hatred for his conduct. (c. 195), ANF 2.540.

Paul does not merely describe the spiritual man as being characterized by suffering wrong, rather than doing wrong. Rather, Paul teaches that a Christian does not keep count of injuries. For Paul does not allow him even to pray against the man who has done wrong to him. For he knows that the Lord expressly commanded us to pray for our enemies. (c. 195), ANF 2.548.

Christians are not allowed to use violence to correct the delinquencies of sins. (c. 195), ANF 2.581.

But for a man, bare feet are quite in keeping -- except when he is on military service. (c. 195), ANF 2.267.
Tertullian
The one instrument of peace is what we employ: the Word alone, by whom we honor God. We no longer use the ancient psaltery, trumpet, timbrel, and flute. For those who are God puts His prohibition on every sort of man-killing by that one inclusive commandment: "You shall not kill." (c. 197), ANF 3.80.
"Nation will not take up sword against nation, and they will no more learn to fight." Who else, therefore, does this prophecy apply to, other than us? For we are fully taught by the new law, and therefore observe these practices ... The practice of the old law was to avenge itself by the vengeance of the sword. It was to pluck out "eye for eye," and to inflict retaliatory revenge for injury. However, the teaching of the new law points to clemency. It changes the primitive ferocity of swords and lances to tranquility. It remodels the primitive execution of war upon the rivals and enemies of the Law into the peaceful actions of plowing and cultivating the land. (c. 197), ANF 3.154.
Now inquiry is made about the point of whether a believer may enter into military service. The question is also asked whether those in the military may be admitted into the faith even the rank and file (or any inferior grade), who are not required to take part in sacrifices or capital punishments ... A man cannot give his allegiance to two masters -- God and Caesar ... How will a Christian man participate in war? In fact, how will he serve even in peace without a sword? For the Lord has taken the sword away. It is also true that soldiers came to John [the Baptist] and received the instructions for their conduct. It is true also that a centurion believed. Nevertheless, the Lord afterward, in disarming Peter, disarmed every soldier. (c. 200), ANF 3.73.

Men of old were used to requiring "eye for eye, and tooth for tooth" and to repay evil for evil, with usury! ... But after Christ has supervened and has united the grace of faith with patience, now it is no longer lawful to attack others even with words, nor to merely say "fool," without danger of the judgment... Christ says, "Love your enemies and bless your cursers, and pray for your persecutors." (c. 200), ANF 3.711.

If someone attempts to provoke you by physical violence, the admonition of the Lord is at hand. He says, "To him who strikes you on the face, turn the other cheek also." Let outrageousness be worn out by your patience. Whatever that blow may be, joined with pain and scorn, it will receive a heavier one from the Lord. (c. 200), ANF 3.712.

For what difference is there between provoker and provoked? The only difference is that the former was the first to do evil, but the latter did evil afterwards. Each one stands condemned in the eyes of the Lord for hurting a man. For God both prohibits and condemns every wickedness. In evil doing, there is no account taken of the order... The commandment is absolute: evil is not to be repaid with evil. (c. 200), ANF 3.713.

"And they will beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks." In other words, they will change the dispositions of injurious minds, hostile tongues, blasphemy, and all kinds of evil into pursuits of moderation and peace. "Nation will not lift up sword against nation." That is, they will not stir up conflict. "Neither will they learn war any more"-that is, the provocation of hostilities. So you should learn from this that Christ was not promised to be powerful in war. Rather, He was promised to pursue peace. Now, you must deny either that these things were foretold (although they are plainly seen) or that they have been fulfilled (although you read of them). (c. 207) 3.339-340.

The Lord will save them in that day -- even His people -- like sheep... No one gives the name of "sheep" to those who fall in battle with arms in hand, or those who are killed when repelling force with force. Rather, it is given only to those who are slain, yielding themselves up in their own place of duty and with patience -- rather than fighting in self-defense. (c. 207), ANF 3.415.

The soldiers, crowned with laurels, were approaching. However, one of them was more a soldier of God. In fact, he was more steadfast than the rest of his brethren, who had imagined that they could serve two masters. His head alone was uncovered, for he held the useless wreath in his hand. By that peculiarity alone, he was recognized by everyone as being a Christian. (c. 211), ANF 3.93.

Of course, if faith comes later and finds someone already occupied with military service, their case is different. For example, there is the instance of those whom John [the Baptist] received for baptism, and of those most faithful centurions. I mean the centurion whom Christ approved, and the centurion whom Peter instructed [i.e., Cornelius]. Yet, at the same time, when a man has become a believer and faith has been sealed, there must be either an immediate abandonment of the military office, which has been the course of many-or else all sorts of quibbling will have to be resorted to in order to avoid offending God. And such quibbling is not allowed even outside of military service. (c. 211), ANF 3.100.

I think we must first inquire whether warfare is proper at all for Christians. What point is there in discussing the merely incidental, when that on which it rests is to be condemned? Do we believe it is lawful for a human oath to be added to one that is divine? Is it lawful for a man to come to be pledged to another master after Christ has become his Master? Is it lawful to renounce father, mother, and all nearest kinsfolk, whom even the Law has commanded us to honor and love next to God himself?... Is it lawful to make an occupation of the sword, when the Lord proclaims that he who uses the sword will perish by the sword? Will the son of peace take part in the battle when it does not become him even to sue at law? Will he who is not the avenger even of his own wrongs, apply the chain, the prison, the torture, and the punishment? (c. 211) 3.100.

Is the [military] laurel of triumph made of leaves, or of corpses? Is it adorned with ribbons, or with tombs? Is it wet with ointments, or with the tears of wives and mothers? It may be made of some [dead] Christians too. For Christ is also believed among the barbarians. (c. 211) 3.101.

Our religion commands us to love even our enemies, and to pray for those who persecute us. (c. 212) 3.105.
Hippolytus
A soldier of the civil authority must be taught not to kill men and to refuse to do so if he is commanded, and to refuse to take an oath. If he is unwilling to comply, he must be rejected for baptism. A military commander or civic magistrate who wears the purple must resign or be rejected. If an applicant or a believer seeks to become a soldier, he must be rejected, for he has despised God." (c. 200, Apostolic Tradition 16:17-19)
Origen
The existence of many kingdoms would have been a hindrance to the spread of the doctrine of Jesus throughout the entire world... This was because of the need for men everywhere to engage in war and fight on behalf of their native country -- -which was the case before the times of Augustus... How, then, was it possible for the Gospel doctrine of peace to prevail throughout the world? For it does not permit men to take vengeance even upon their enemies. It was only possible because, at the coming of Jesus, a milder spirit had been everywhere introduced into the conduct of things. (c. 248), ANF 4.444.

The statement [of Celsus, a pagan critic] is false "that in the days of Jesus, others who were Jews rebelled against the Jewish state and became His followers." For neither Celsus, nor those who think like him, are able to point out any act on the part of Christians that hints of rebellion. In fact, if a revolt had led to the formation of the Christian commonwealth, the Christian Lawgiver would not have altogether forbidden the putting of men to death. So it could not have derived its existence in such a way from the Jews. For they were permitted to take up arms in defense of the members of their families and to slay their enemies. Yet, Christ nowhere teaches that it is right for His own disciples to offer violence to anyone, no matter how wicked. For He did not consider it to be in accord with His laws to allow the killing of any individual whomever. For His laws were derived from a divine source. Indeed, if the Christians truly owed their origin to a rebellion, they would not have adopted laws of so exceedingly mild a character. For their laws do not allow them on any occasion to resist their persecutors, even when it was their fate to be slain as sheep. (c. 248), ANF 4.467.

Christians were taught not to avenge themselves upon their enemies... They would not have made war (although capable) even if they had received authority to do so. For they have obtained this reward from God: that He has always warred on their behalf. On certain occasions, he has restrained those who rose up against them and desired to destroy them... On special occasions, some have endured death for the sake of Christianity, and those individuals can be easily numbered. However, God has not permitted the whole nation [of Christians] to be exterminated. (c. 248), ANF 4.467, 468.

Perhaps the so-called wars among the bees convey instructions as to the manner in which wars should be waged in a just and orderly way among men -- if ever there arise a necessity for them. (c. 248), ANF 4.533.

To those who inquire of us from where we come, or who is our founder, we reply that we have come agreeably to the counsels of Jesus. We have cut down our hostile, insolent, and wearisome swords into plowshares. We have converted into pruning hooks the spears that were formerly used in war. For we no longer take up "sword against nation," nor do we "learn war any more." That is because we have become children of peace for the sake of Jesus, who is our Leader. (c. 248), ANF 4.558.
Celsus [a pagan critic]
[ORIGEN'S REPLY:] We would observe that it must be impossible for the legislation of Moses, taken literally, to harmonize with the calling of the Gentiles and with their subjection to the Roman government. On the other hand, it would be impossible for the Jews to preserve their civil economy unchanged if they were to embrace the gospel. For Christians could not slay their enemies. Nor could they condemn those who had broken the law to be burned or stoned, as Moses commands... However, in the case of the ancient Jews, who had a land and a form of government of their own, to take from them the right of making war upon their enemies, of fighting for their country, of putting to death or otherwise punishing adulterers, murderers, or others who were guilty of similar crimes, would have been to subject them to sudden and utter destruction whenever the enemy fell upon them. For, in that case, their very laws would restrain them and prevent them from resisting the enemy. Yet, that same providence that of old gave the Law, and has now given the gospel of Jesus Christ, has destroyed their city and their temple, not wishing the Jewish state to continue any longer... However, this providence has extended the Christian religion day by day, so that it is now preached everywhere with boldness. And this is in spite of the numerous obstacles that oppose the spread of Christ's teaching in the world. However, since it was the purpose of God that the nations should receive the benefits of Christ's teaching, all the devices of men against Christians have been brought to nothing. For the more that kings, rulers, and peoples have persecuted them everywhere, the more Christians have increased in number and grown in strength. (c. 248), ANF 4.617, 618, 621.

[CELSUS:]
[ORIGEN'S REPLY - The value of prayer for national defense, for all people, for government leaders, and for all people in high positions ] What would happen if, instead of only a relatively few persons believing (as at the present), the entire empire of Rome believed? They would pray to the Word, who of old said to the Hebrews, when they were pursued by the Egyptians: "The Lord will fight for you, and you will hold your peace." And if all the Romans united in prayer with one accord, they would be able to put to flight far more enemies than those who were defeated by the prayer of Moses... However, He had made the fulfillment of His promises dependent on certain conditions-namely, that they would observe and live according to His Law... But if all the Romans embraced the Christian faith (according to the supposition of Celsus), they would overcome their enemies when they prayed. Or rather, they would not war at all. For they would be guarded by that divine power that promised to save five entire cities for the sake of fifty righteous persons. Men of God are assuredly the salt of the earth. They preserve the order of the world. And society is held together as long as the salt is uncorrupted... When God gives to the Tempter permission to persecute us, then we suffer persecution. And when God wishes us to be free from suffering -- even in the middle of a world that hates us -- we enjoy a wonderful peace, trusting in the protection of Him who said, "Be of good cheer, for I have overcome the world." (c. 248), ANF 4.666.

In the next place, Celsus urges us "to help the king with all our might, to labor with him in the maintenance of justice, and to fight for him. Or if he demands it, to fight under him or lead an army along with him." To this, our answer is that we do give help to kings when needed. But this is, so to speak, a divine help, "putting on the whole armor of God." And we do this in obedience to the commandment of the apostle: "I exhort, therefore, that first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgiving be made for all men; for kings, and for all who are in authority." So the more anyone excels in godliness, the more effective the help is that he renders to kings. This is a greater help than what is given by soldiers who go forth to fight and kill as many of the enemy as they can. And to those enemies of our faith who demand us to bear arms for the commonwealth and to slay men, we reply: "Do not those who are the priests at certain shrines... keep their hands free from blood, so that they may offer the appointed sacrifices to your gods with unstained hands that are free from human blood? Even when war is upon you, you never enlist the priests in the army. If, then, that is a praiseworthy custom, how much more so that when others are engaged in battle Christians engage as the priests and ministers of God, keeping their hands pure. For they wrestle in prayers to God on behalf of those who are fighting in a righteous cause, and for the king who reigns righteously. They pray that whatever is opposed to those who act righteously may be destroyed.

Our prayers defeat all demons who stir up war. Those demons also lead persons to violate their oaths and to disturb the peace. Accordingly, in this way, we are much more helpful to the kings than those who go into the field to fight for them. And we do take our part in public affairs when we join self-denying exercises to our righteous prayers and meditations, which teach us to despise pleasures and not to be led away by them. So none fight better for the king than we do. Indeed, we do not fight under him even if he demands it. Yet, we fight on his behalf, forming a special army-an army of godliness-by offering our prayers to God. And if Celsus would have us "lead armies in defense of our country," let him know that we do this too. And we do not do it for the purpose of being seen by men or for vainglory. For in secret, and in our own hearts, our prayers ascend on behalf of our fellow-citizens, as from priests. And Christians are benefactors of their country more than others. For they train up citizens and inculcate piety to the Supreme Being. And they promote to a divine and heavenly city those whose lives in the smallest cities have been good and worthy. (c. 248), ANF 4.667, 668.
Cyprian
Wars are scattered all over the earth with the bloody horror of camps. The whole world is wet with mutual blood. And murder-which is admitted to be a crime in the case of an individual-is called a virtue when it is committed wholesale. Impunity is claimed for the wicked deeds, not because they are guiltless-but because the cruelty is perpetrated on a grand scale! (c. 250), ANF 5.277.

Christians do not attack their assailants in return, for it is not lawful for the innocent to kill even the guilty. (c. 250), ANF 5.351.

We may not hate. And we please God more by rendering no return for wrong. Therefore, we exhort you to make satisfaction to God. Do this while you have the power, while there yet remains in you something of life... We do not envy your comforts, nor do we conceal the divine benefits. We repay kindness for your hatred. In return for the torments and penalties that are inflicted on us, we point out to you the ways of salvation. (c. 250), ANF 5.465.

The Christian has departed from rage and carnal contention as if from the hurricanes of the sea. He has already begun to be tranquil and meek in the harbor of Christ. Therefore, he should allow neither anger nor discord within his breath. For he must neither return evil for evil, nor bear hatred. (c. 250), ANF 5.488.

Even our enemies are to be loved. (c. 250), ANF 5:546.

The hand must not be spotted with the sword and blood -- not after the Eucharist is carried in it. (c. 250), ANF 5.488.
Lucius Caecilius Firmianus Lactantius
When the worship of God was taken away, men lost the knowledge of good and evil... They then began to fight with one another, to plot, and to achieve glory for themselves from the shedding of human blood. (c. 304-313), ANF 7.141.
If only God were worshipped, there would not be dissensions and wars. For men would know that they are the sons of one God. (c. 304-313), ANF 7.143.
Why would [the just man] carry on war and mix himself with the passions of others when his mind is engaged in perpetual peace with men? Would he be delighted with foreign merchandise or with human blood-he who does not know how to seek gain? For the Christian is satisfied with his standard of living. He considers it unlawful not only to commit slaughter himself, but also to be present with those who do it. (c. 304-313), ANF 7.153.
Religion is to be defended -- not by putting to death -- but by dying. Not by cruelty, but by patient endurance. Not by guilt, but by good faith. For the former belongs to evil, but the latter to the good... For if you wish to defend religion by bloodshed, tortures, and guilt, it will no longer be defended. Rather, it will be polluted and profaned... And, therefore, when we suffer such impious things, we do not resist even in word. Rather, we leave vengeance to God. We do not act as those persons who would have it appear that they are defenders of their gods, who rage without restraint against those who do not worship them. (c. 304-313), ANF 7.157, 158.
If desire is restrained, no one will use violence by land or by sea. No one will lead an army to carry off and lay waste the property of others… For what are the interests of our country, but the detriments of another state or nation? To extend the boundaries that are violently taken from others, to increase the power of the state, to improve the revenues-all of these things are not virtues. Rather, they are the overthrowing of virtues. (c. 304-313), ANF 7.169.
How can a man be just who hates, who despoils, who puts to death? Yet, those who strive to be serviceable to their country do all these things... When they speak of the "duties" relating to warfare, their speech pertains neither to justice nor to true virtue. (c. 304-313), ANF 7.169.
The Stoics say that the emotion of anger is the whetstone of virtue. As though no one could fight bravely against enemies unless he were excited by anger. By this, they plainly show that they neither know what virtue is, nor why God gave anger to man. If it were given to us for the purpose of using it to slay men, then what creature can be considered more savage than man? Who resembles the wild beasts more than that creature whom God formed for communion and innocence? (c. 304-313), ANF 7.185.
Therefore, it is not befitting that those who strive to keep to the path of justice should be companions and sharers in this public homicide. For when God forbids us to kill, He prohibits more than the open violence that is not even allowed by the public laws. He also warns us against doing those things that are considered lawful among men. For that reason, it will not be lawful for a just man to engage in warfare, since his warfare is justice itself. Nor is it lawful for him to accuse anyone of a capital charge. For it makes no difference whether you put a man to death by word, or by the sword instead. That is because it is the act of putting to death itself that is prohibited. Therefore, with regard to this commandment of God, there should be no exception at all. Rather, it is always unlawful to put a man to death, whom God willed to be a sacred creature. (c. 304-313), ANF 7.187.
It is not right that a worshipper of God should be injured by a another worshipper of God. (c. 304-313), ANF 7.271.
Then Diocletian, in furious passion, ordered not only all who were assisting at the holy ceremonies, but also all who resided within the palace, to sacrifice. And, if they refused, they were to be whipped. And further, by letters to the commanding officers, he ordered that all soldiers should be forced to the same impiety, under pain of being dismissed from the service. (c. 320), ANF 7.304, 305.
Diocletian said that it would be enough for him to exclude persons of that religion [i.e., Christians] from the court and the army. (c. 320), ANF 7.305.
So once again I ask you Drew what changed? Is it wrong to call attention to the attitude of the Early Church? Is it wrong to compare the Church up to around 300 to the Church in 400? They were struggling with the kinds of issues JW's have also considered.
I doubt many have stayed with this thread at this point. It's a lot of reading. But you have to realize that while non-involvement in wars is not a sufficient condition to being considered a "good Christian" it certainly appears to be a necessary condition.
Non-involvement in war is a very important litmus test and JW's have very good reasons to point this out.

Why the Watchtowers "War" argument is totally bogus

Share this